Wal-Mart sues brain-damaged woman for $417,000

[RandomGuy]

I have been somewhat ambivalent about the big WM until this. Walmart will never see another dime of ol' RG's money.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/art.debbie.shank.jpg
Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000.


JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral, but she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.


Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."

But hey, everybody who uses medicare is just sponging off the system and too lazy to work, right?

This woman needs to get off her butt and find a job that pays her healthcare and everything will be peachy, right? I mean, in a capitalist system if a person is so poor that he/she needs to be on Medicare there is something morally wrong with him/her right?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I have been somewhat ambivalent about the big WM until this. Walmart will never see another dime of ol' RG's money.


http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/art.debbie.shank.jpg
Debbie Shank, 52, has severe brain damage after a traffic accident in May 2000.


But hey, everybody who uses medicare is just sponging off the system and too lazy to work, right?

This woman needs to get off her butt and find a job that pays her healthcare and everything will be peachy, right? I mean, in a capitalist system if a person is so poor that he/she needs to be on Medicare there is something morally wrong with him/her right?

No, she just made bad decisions.. partied it up instead of saving money.. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

No, she just made bad decisions.. partied it up instead of saving money.. :rolleyes

Man, I hate it when people who get hit by semi-tractor trailors drive up the cost of health care for the rest of us...

[Wild Cobra]

Well, I agree Wal-Mart should make an exception in cases that are extrodinary. Who knows, maybe they would have and maybe the family just pissed them off? Remember, we seldom hear the whole story. Keep an open mind. We all complain about the prices of health care and insurance, then nobody wants to do things to keep the prices in check. How much would Wal-Marts insurance costs go up if they made such changes?

Life can be brutal. This does really sucks.

And...

The lawyer is a liar, incompetent, or both. He knew, or should have known this would happen. They should have gone for more money stating they would have to repay Wal-Mart and fees and still needed long term health care expenses. Look at any insurance policy this is a standard practice to collect the money back if someone else pays for the costs.

Here's a possibility. Sue the lawyer for incompetence? Anyone know if that can be done? They effective got no money. Only the lawyer and Wal-Mart were made whole, at least partially.

[SPARKY]

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Poll the associates and see how many believe it's fair.

Anyways, I'm sure Wal-Mart could find a way to resolve this without pursuing the claim. And one would have to think that the negative publicity over this will end up costing the company more than $470K.

[SPARKY]

Well, I agree Wal-Mart should make an exception in cases that are extrodinary. Who knows, maybe they would have and maybe the family just pissed them off? Remember, we seldom hear the whole story. Keep an open mind. We all complain about the prices of health care and insurance, then nobody wants to do things to keep the prices in check. How much would Wal-Marts insurance costs go up if they made such changes?

What part of the story would make it better for Wal-Mart? That she took 18 minute breaks instead of 15 minute ones when on the job? That her dead son liked to look at porn on the internets? She's a Democrat?



Life can be brutal. This does really sucks.


The Jimmy Carter defense? Come on.



And...

The lawyer is a liar, incompetent, or both. He knew, or should have known this would happen. They should have gone for more money stating they would have to repay Wal-Mart and fees and still needed long term health care expenses. Look at any insurance policy this is a standard practice to collect the money back if someone else pays for the costs.

Here's a possibility. Sue the lawyer for incompetence? Anyone know if that can be done? They effective got no money. Only the lawyer and Wal-Mart were made whole, at least partially.

Why can't it be that one of the planet's largest private enterprises is acting a bit unethical?

[101A]

Well, I agree Wal-Mart should make an exception in cases that are extrodinary. Who knows, maybe they would have and maybe the family just pissed them off? Remember, we seldom hear the whole story. Keep an open mind. We all complain about the prices of health care and insurance, then nobody wants to do things to keep the prices in check. How much would Wal-Marts insurance costs go up if they made such changes?

Life can be brutal. This does really sucks.

And...

The lawyer is a liar, incompetent, or both. He knew, or should have known this would happen. They should have gone for more money stating they would have to repay Wal-Mart and fees and still needed long term health care expenses. Look at any insurance policy this is a standard practice to collect the money back if someone else pays for the costs.

Here's a possibility. Sue the lawyer for incompetence? Anyone know if that can be done? They effective got no money. Only the lawyer and Wal-Mart were made whole, at least partially.It's called subrogation, and it's SOP. The lawyer screwed up in several ways. First, he should have known it was going to happen - second, the plan can only recoup money for damages paid specifically FOR medical expenses - essentially she can't get paid twice for the same thing. If she would have been paid for lost wages, pain and suffering, or even inconvenience - there would be now subrogation.

Truly is the lawyers fault - should have been looking out for his clients - he's paid to notice the fine print after all.

Is HE taking his cut out of the subrogation amount? Why is Wal-Mart so much more evil than him. Contracts are contracts, I'm no fan of Wal-Mart, but they have every right to uphold one as much as the next guy.

[SPARKY]

I guess Jeremy Shank died fighting for the freedom of Wal-Mart to legally hound his brain-damaged mother.

She's the mother of a KIA serviceman. Once upon a time that would mean something in this country.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess Jeremy Shank died fighting for the freedom of Wal-Mart to legally hound his brain-damaged mother.

She's the mother of a KIA serviceman. Once upon a time that would mean something in this country.
It means allot. It doesn't make it right to steal from others however. The law is the law, contracts are written for a reason.

I say sue the lawyer!

[RandomGuy]

Well, I agree Wal-Mart should make an exception in cases that are extrodinary. Who knows, maybe they would have and maybe the family just pissed them off? Remember, we seldom hear the whole story. Keep an open mind. We all complain about the prices of health care and insurance, then nobody wants to do things to keep the prices in check. How much would Wal-Marts insurance costs go up if they made such changes?

This is a very good point.

The technical term for this is called "subrogation" (literally "stepping into someone elses shoes") and it is a VERY standard clause in EVERY insurance contract.

Insurers maintian whole legal divisions that LIVE for this kind of stuff to attempt to recoup some of their losses.

The woman's counsel should have worked hand-in-hand with the subrogation people to coordinate and take care of this woman.

As it is, Walmart is now in the position of taking a pass on this. The ultimate face-saving bit would be for one of Walmarts foundations to step in and provide some relief for this.

It is worth noting that the company paid out almost 5 billion dollars to investors last year in both dividends and stock buy-backs.
(see the "cash used in financing activities" total. (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=WMT&annual)

Surely they probably could afford to let this one go. I would imagine the bad publicity would cost them more than any potential rise in health care premiums.

[boutons_]

Yep, this looks like W-M has a case. WM paid up, then she got compensated by the trucking company, so WM wants its money back.

yes, the lady's lawyer should have seen that double compensation wouldn't fly.

I would agree with WM only if the trucking company payment was not reduced with the knowledge that WM had also paid.

"We all complain about the prices of health care and insurance, then nobody wants to do things to keep the prices in check"

There are 2 insurance companies involved here, trucking company's and WM's. I doubt either one is suffering from this single case.

While I'm absolutely no fan of lawyers, personal injury lawyers don't win every time, so their "insurance" is to cover their lost cases with their won cases.

Capping liability at $250K in TX means that a lot of the victims can't even get into court, because the lawyers say their slice isn't worth their time. So the corps escape their liability and crush the victims, which is how fascist Repug/conservatives prefer society to be run.

Protect/enrich the institutions, while crushing the citizens. The individual right's as the primary concern of American govt increasingly being crushed to the benefit of (corporatized, corrupted) govt and the corps. ie, the Repugs are taking the USA backwards to royal/church concept of personal right, ie, none. The state/corps are superior and favored in every way vs citizens.

[SPARKY]

It means allot. It doesn't make it right to steal from others however. The law is the law, contracts are written for a reason.

I say sue the lawyer!

Stealing?

The woman won a judgment based on the fact that she has been left with a permanent brain injury.

[RandomGuy]

This was a good example of how well-intended caps on liabilities can come back to have unintended results.

The real data on liability suits is that caps aren't really needed from what I have seen. The courts are pretty good about winnowing out frivolous suits and the anecdotal things that make for sensationalistic news reports are rare enough not to be much of a factor in the overall US economy.

Even medical malpractice suits don't drive cost increases as much as proponents of caps would have anyone believe. (reference: the PWC "whitepaper" analysis of 2006 cost increases to US medical costs)

[possessed]

I have been somewhat ambivalent about the big WM until this. Walmart will never see another dime of ol' RG's money.

I doubt they'll even notice.

:wakeup

[SPARKY]

ROFL (http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/216.aspx)

[RandomGuy]

Stealing?

The woman won a judgment based on the fact that she has been left with a permanent brain injury.

Here is how it works:

I give you health insurance, and the clause in question (subrogation) says that if you get injured and it is someone elses fault, it is my obligation to pay for your health care...

BUT

Just as I am obligated to pay for your health care, you are obligated, if you sue the person at fault, to reimburse me for my payments, because I ultimately have accepted the risk of loss for your health issues.

Insurance is a transfer of risk, from the policyholder to the insurer.

With that transfer comes the right of recapture/subrogation.

The "theft" here is that she was paid by the insurer for her injuries, and then sued the trucking company to recover the costs of her health care, among others.

So, in essence, she got paid twice, once by her (wal-mart's) insurer, once by the trucking company insurer.

It is a sucky thing to do in this case, though. This is where black and white issues get a lot grayer, because this woman's needs must be balanced with the needs of all the other policyholders.

[SPARKY]

Eh, I understand the legal and insurance concepts. Apparently the ethical one is lost on a few here.

[RandomGuy]

I doubt they'll even notice.

:wakeup

I doubt they will either. But when me and a million other people start shopping at their competitors...

I will do my part to let people know about this.

The best case outcome is for someone with a sense of compassion to pay off Wal-marts insurance company, and maybe help the woman with her bills.

I would contribute some of my money to that fund. As much as a poor grad student with 2 kids can afford...

[RandomGuy]

ROFL (http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/216.aspx)

Further rofl... (http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/241.aspx)

I like to think, despite what many on the left like to believe, that executives are human too. Hopefully someone at Wally-World will come to their senses and work to get this resolved.

I think our country at least owes the woman as much.

[101A]

Wal Mart has to beware setting a precedent in a case like this; tricky ground in group insurance policies. You must treat ALL as you treat one. They really can't make an "exception".


That said, I already don't shop at Wal Mart. I stopped when they tried to move into Helotes several years back.

[Whisky Dog]

Old Jim Shank should just start shopping for all of his groceries at WM, go through self checkout, and pay for about 1/10th of the merch. Everyone else already does.

[PixelPusher]

Further rofl... (http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/241.aspx)

I like to think, despite what many on the left like to believe, that executives are human too.
Executives are human; corporations are not (even though they are legally regarded as possessing the same rights as actually human citizens).

I think this is an extremely important distinction that goes to the heart of why real life capitalism is as equally likely to be destructive and dystopic, as opposed to the creative nirvana Republicans always promise.

[SPARKY]

Further rofl... (http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/241.aspx)

I like to think, despite what many on the left like to believe, that executives are human too. Hopefully someone at Wally-World will come to their senses and work to get this resolved.

I think our country at least owes the woman as much.

Indeed. Wal-Mart owes a little bit to those willing to put their lives on the line in defense of the nation in which it has prospered. One would think that when a family member has been a faithful employee and has experienced such a loss that it wouldn't be that much of an issue to forgive and forget what is for it a trifling sum.

Frankly I am a bit surprised that there isn't a bit more of outrage thusfar in the thread. Instead we see some ever willing to justify Wal-Mart's obvious ambivalence as a mere legal right.

Wal-Mart likes to trade on its support for the troops and their families, as well as the care of its employees, but apparently that only goes so far.

What is legal is not necessarily moral and ethical. When common sense and justice is subjugated to what is merely legal then we have lost our soul as a nation.

[sabar]

Sparky is on the dime here, what is legal isn't always what's right and just. If Wal-Mart was a human being and not a soul-less corporation, there would be no problem here unless that human being was a real jerk. Fact is, it's a lot easier to be unethical as a corporation than as a person because some of your guilt is diluted.

The obvious non-partisan solution is to make corporations more liable but ethics are hard to code into law. What's most likely to happen I imagine is that some kind-hearted people raise enough money to step in for Wal-Mart's lack of morals.

[Heath Ledger]

Surely the bad pr from this case, will cost Wal Mart a lot more than $400+k. Later im off to pick up some cheap groceries. At Wal Mart.

[Heath Ledger]

I once read that if Wal Mart lost all of its non employee customers that it would still turn a profit from all of the shopping their employees do when they get their checks, since most are part timers they spend all of their checks before they even get off work on payday.

[101A]

Sparky is on the dime here, what is legal isn't always what's right and just. If Wal-Mart was a human being and not a soul-less corporation, there would be no problem here unless that human being was a real jerk. Fact is, it's a lot easier to be unethical as a corporation than as a person because some of your guilt is diluted.

The obvious non-partisan solution is to make corporations more liable but ethics are hard to code into law. What's most likely to happen I imagine is that some kind-hearted people raise enough money to step in for Wal-Mart's lack of morals.Again if Wal Mart makes an exception in this case, they must make an exception in ALL cases; present AND past. Otherwise they can be charged with discrimination. The woman is white, probably Christian; her son was in the military; there are any number of factors (and some we no doubt can't imagine) that ANOTHER person's clever lawyer could use to claim THEIR client didn't get those same favors; and the Wal Mart Health plan must pay up!

It doesn't stop there; the DOL gets interested in discrimination suits as they pertain to health plans; and would have direct jurisdiction over this plan. It is undoubtedly self-funded, and therefore directly under their jurisdiction through ERISA. They could then levy fines for each and EVERY case of subrogation that Wal-Mart DID collect on - going back forever if they want. A client of mine just got levied $500,000 for discriminating within their health plan after a DOL audit. That company only has 400 employees - more than a thousand times smaller than Wal-Mart! And again, that's only the DOL - the lawyers of the OTHER tragic accident victims would be ALL over that decision.

Now that it's public? They would be idiots to pay her anything - and Wal-Mart is ANYTHING before they are idiots.

[101A]

Duplicate Post

[xrayzebra]

Gary Clack had a column on this topic in this mornings E-N.
Supposedly, the husband has divorced the woman so she could
get medicaid. For all the post so far, one thing hasn't been
mentioned. She will get disability SOC and possibly had
disability insurance. She will also go on Medicare since she is
disabled and worked under SOC. Evidently she is in a nursing
home. I know she has diminished mental capacity, short term
memory lost, but is she physically disabled? There are so
many issues that we have no knowledge of, how can anyone of
us make even an educated guess. I agree with one thing though.
Her lawyer, if he could read, knew about the clause in her
insurance. He was absolutely incompetent in his representation
for her. He should be sued.

[SPARKY]

Again if Wal Mart makes an exception in this case, they must make an exception in ALL cases; present AND past. Otherwise they can be charged with discrimination. The woman is white, probably Christian; her son was in the military; there are any number of factors (and some we no doubt can't imagine) that ANOTHER person's clever lawyer could use to claim THEIR client didn't get those same favors; and the Wal Mart Health plan must pay up!

It doesn't stop there; the DOL gets interested in discrimination suits as they pertain to health plans; and would have direct jurisdiction over this plan. It is undoubtedly self-funded, and therefore directly under their jurisdiction through ERISA. They could then levy fines for each and EVERY case of subrogation that Wal-Mart DID collect on - going back forever if they want. A client of mine just got levied $500,000 for discriminating within their health plan after a DOL audit. That company only has 400 employees - more than a thousand times smaller than Wal-Mart! And again, that's only the DOL - the lawyers of the OTHER tragic accident victims would be ALL over that decision.

Now that it's public? They would be idiots to pay her anything - and Wal-Mart is ANYTHING before they are idiots.

Well how about going through the legal motions in concert with the Wal-Mart Foundation covering the cost so the net impact to the family is nil?

[SAGambler]

Well, I agree Wal-Mart should make an exception in cases that are extrodinary. Who knows, maybe they would have and maybe the family just pissed them off? Remember, we seldom hear the whole story. Keep an open mind. We all complain about the prices of health care and insurance, then nobody wants to do things to keep the prices in check. How much would Wal-Marts insurance costs go up if they made such changes?

Life can be brutal. This does really sucks.

And...

The lawyer is a liar, incompetent, or both. He knew, or should have known this would happen. They should have gone for more money stating they would have to repay Wal-Mart and fees and still needed long term health care expenses. Look at any insurance policy this is a standard practice to collect the money back if someone else pays for the costs.

Here's a possibility. Sue the lawyer for incompetence? Anyone know if that can be done? They effective got no money. Only the lawyer and Wal-Mart were made whole, at least partially.

Okay, WM gets back less than 500,000. And that was money they PAID OUT. The LEGAL FEES were more than that. So why isn't anyone bitching that the LAWYER/LAWYERS should give back what he/they stuck in his/their pocket? It's just amazing how people think. Or don't....

[101A]

Well how about going through the legal motions in concert with the Wal-Mart Foundation covering the cost so the net impact to the family is nil?Tomato Tomata.

Discrimination.

[SAGambler]

And just what is Wal Mart doing that our own GOVERNMENT doesn't do? Does anyone realize that if a member of the military is involved in a traffic accident and is treated at, say, Wilford Hall and that person then recovers money in a settlement, they owe Big Willy for the treatment they received?

I suspect every group policy is written exactly the same way, it's just that this happens to be BIG BAD WAL MART. Do a search on these people. Web sites for donations, guy appearing on TV. Saying he has divorced her so she can get more medicaid. That smacks of fraud right there. Since when do you get a divorce so someone can draw more medicaid. I mean, what court buys that as a reason for divorce.

Like someone said, we have only heard part of this story. The part that makes Big Bad Wally World look terrible.

[SPARKY]

Tomato Tomata.

Discrimination.


Nope. The foundation can select the recipients of its grants.

[Pistons_In_7]

You obviously don't know what medicaid is, its basicly means if you are receiving it you are the poorest of the poor, but uncle sam fits the bill for your health care be it in a nursing home or whatever, they can and will do a spenddown of any assets, it means these people are in dire straights. Wal Mart has been notorious for fucking its employees and has been sued to the nth degree for fucking employees out of benefits, over time wages and not giving employees breaks. Wal Mart deserves no sympathy whatsoever. Sam Walton would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the bullshit that Wal Mart does and gets away with.

[SPARKY]

Maybe her husband ought to take her out back and shoot her. Then we can get on with the business of spreading freedom and rolling back prices across the globe.

[101A]

Nope. The foundation can select the recipients of its grants.'

The foundation would have to PROVE, especially, again to ALL the other people who have paid Subro claims back to the benefit trust that that was a conicidental, arms-length transaction. Her odds, therefore, of getting paid by the foundation would have to be no greater than anyone elses.

[101A]

You obviously don't know what medicaid is, its basicly means if you are receiving it you are the poorest of the poor, but uncle sam fits the bill for your health care be it in a nursing home or whatever, they can and will do a spenddown of any assets, it means these people are in dire straights. Wal Mart has been notorious for fucking its employees and has been sued to the nth degree for fucking employees out of benefits, over time wages and not giving employees breaks. Wal Mart deserves no sympathy whatsoever. Sam Walton would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the bullshit that Wal Mart does and gets away with.
OT: Are liberals capable of making a decision without emotion being a major factor in it?

[SPARKY]

'

The foundation would have to PROVE, especially, again to ALL the other people who have paid Subro claims back to the benefit trust that that was a conicidental, arms-length transaction. Her odds, therefore, of getting paid by the foundation would have to be no greater than anyone elses.

The foundation's managers felt that hers was a compelling case and made a distribution, in keeping with its policy.

[SAGambler]

You obviously don't know what medicaid is, its basicly means if you are receiving it you are the poorest of the poor, but uncle sam fits the bill for your health care be it in a nursing home or whatever, they can and will do a spenddown of any assets, it means these people are in dire straights. Wal Mart has been notorious for fucking its employees and has been sued to the nth degree for fucking employees out of benefits, over time wages and not giving employees breaks. Wal Mart deserves no sympathy whatsoever. Sam Walton would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the bullshit that Wal Mart does and gets away with.

Look at it this way. Let's say I was in an accident, and YOU fronted the money for my medical expenses. Then I take the person that was responsible for that accident to court and recover a half million dollars.

Are you telling me you would not expect me to reimburse you for the money you laid out? Am I just to get to keep the windfall, while you suffer the loss that was in no way your fault in any form or fashion?

No difference in this scenario, and the one we are talking about. The real question is, if the lawyer knew this, and he damn well should have, why didn't he go after more money? Why would he settle for a million when he knew she would require more? Did he just want to take his 30% and get on to the next victim? If these people feel they need to do something, sue the damn lawyer that put them in these circumstances.

[SPARKY]

OT: Are liberals capable of making a decision without emotion being a major factor in it?


OTOT: Are conservatives capable of ethical considerations when it comes to corporate behavior or is that solely for social issues?

[SPARKY]

Look at it this way. Let's say I was in an accident, and YOU fronted the money for my medical expenses. Then I take the person that was responsible for that accident to court and recover a half million dollars.

Are you telling me you would not expect me to reimburse you for the money you laid out? Am I just to get to keep the windfall, while you suffer the loss that was in no way your fault in any form or fashion?

No difference in this scenario, and the one we are talking about. The real question is, if the lawyer knew this, and he damn well should have, why didn't he go after more money? Why would he settle for a million when he knew she would require more? Did he just want to take his 30% and get on to the next victim? If these people feel they need to do something, sue the damn lawyer that put them in these circumstances.

Some "windfall."

[SPARKY]

We should be patriotic and support our troops and we should be worried that some frozen embryo in a lab might be destroyed but when it comes to the faithful employee and mother of a soldier who died while serving his country then forget about emotion, forget about doing what is right.

[101A]

OTOT: Are conservatives capable of ethical considerations when it comes to corporate behavior or is that solely for social issues?I stated in this thread I don't shop at Wal Mart. That is the hammer I wield. So, to answer your question: Absolutely.

I think your response was an epiphany of sorts for me. Liberals, apparently, don't view any action as legitimate unless it originates from the government...and they call conservatives narrow-minded.

[SPARKY]

It's only when businesses provide benefits to the partners of homosexuals that we should be concerned.

[101A]

It's only when businesses provide benefits to the partners of homosexuals that we should be concerned.What are you talking about?

I don't shop at Wal Mart because I hate their stores, and what they have done to choice and quality shopping in small-town USA. They are impersonal and sell a bunch of crap. I also believe they used influence with the former administration to acquire MFN for China in the early 90's.

BTW, you gonna vote for Hillary if she wrenches the nomination from Obama? She was on their board, you know?

[SPARKY]

I'm going to vote for neither.

I'd like to vote for the conservative candidate who's about balancing the budget, cutting spending, less regulation, etc...

[101A]

I'm going to vote for neither.

I'd like to vote for the conservative candidate who's about balancing the budget, cutting spending, less regulation, etc...:depressed

good luck with that.

[Wild Cobra]

Stealing?
Yes, she wishes to keep what is not rightfully hers. Actually, it's the family. And she settled for money which wasn't sufficient to cover the lawyers cost and her care. That does not give her the right to steal from Wal-Mart. Under the terms of the agreement, she owes them for the medical expenses covered.

Brain-damaged ex-worker must pay $470,000 to Wal-Mart
By Jonathan J. Cooper
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
03/18/2008
(http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/washington/story/5191624BF8CD6D67862574100013EECD?OpenDocument)

Now until reading this story, I didn't know it was a settlement. They did not win this case in court, but settled. It is not Wal-Marts fault they didn't settle for enough money!

They would have been better off to take the case to close in the courts. The lawyer knew they would have to reimburse Wal-Mart. Maybe they didn't have a strong enough case for a sure win, and the lawyer would only get money with a settlement?

Again, I say sue the lawyer. He did not do right by his client. Wal-Mart would not be able to sue if the went for it and lost! Wal-Mart might not even go for the case if they went for it and won an insufficient amount. The settlement changes everything.



The woman won a judgment based on the fact that she has been left with a permanent brain injury.
And she was awarded the money which wasn't sufficient to cover the lawyers cost and her care. That does not give her the right to steal from Wal-Mart. Under the terms of the agreement, she owes them for the medical expenses covered.

[Wild Cobra]

People....

The opening article is a lie.

She was not awarded the money. They settled for an insufficint amount.

That changes everything.

[SPARKY]

So what if it was settled?

When exactly are the criminal charges for theft to be filed?

Why do I feel like I just stepped into a Dickens novel?

[Wild Cobra]

So what if it was settled?

So what? They gave in to an insufficient amount to cover the legal costs. That is their fault, not Wal-Marts.



When exactly are the criminal charges for theft to be filed?

Charges have been filed. Just not under theft. Wal-Mart is sueing to get their money back that the family is wrongfully witholding.



Why do I feel like I just stepped into a Dickens novel?

Wake-up... stop dreaming...

This is real life.

[SPARKY]

So what? They gave in to an insufficient amount to cover the legal costs. That is their fault, not Wal-Marts.

So the family made sure they got something rather than risk it all in trial.




Charges have been filed. Just not under theft. Wal-Mart is sueing to get their money back that the family is wrongfully witholding.


That's not a criminal charge.






Wake-up... stop dreaming...

This is real life.

ROFL. As opposed to having your employer turn the screws on you after you end up brain damaged and lose your 18 year old son in the Iraq War. That's just a fantasy.

We must protect Wal-Mart and George W. Bush at all costs, which apparently includes sticking it to those who bear the costs of their policies.

[SPARKY]

The case was complicated by the fact that the small trucking company the driver worked for had few assets and the absolute minimum of liability insurance required by law. We were eventually obliged to make what we called an inadequate recovery of damages because of that. They didn't want to pay anything initially because they said it was her fault.

Our evidence was that her future damages for health care, loss of income, pain and suffering, all of those, would well exceed $2 million. Had we been dealing with a solvent, responsible company, she would have recovered much more than the $1 million we received in 2002. It took a lot of work and time to achieve what we did because of the circumstances.

source (http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/10301/maurice-graham.html)

[DarkReign]

sue


sue


sue


sue


sue


sue

Did I miss anyone?

[SPARKY]

eh?

[Wild Cobra]

So the family made sure they got something rather than risk it all in trial.

And why should the stock holders and customers of Wal-Mart pay for their stupid decision?

Did you miss my point that they would have been better off to loose? Do you not understand they wouldn't owe Wal-Mart or the Lawyer anything, and not have to go to court again?



That's not a criminal charge.

When I said steal, I meant it as a technicality. Not as a criminal action. You said criminal, not me. I pointed out legal action is being taken to recover the money. Please keep your facts and perspective in check.



ROFL. As opposed to having your employer turn the screws on you after you end up brain damaged and lose your 18 year old son in the Iraq War. That's just a fantasy.

It is not Wal-Marts responsibility.

My God man. This nation is screwed up because of people like you, having an "entitlement mentality."



We must protect Wal-Mart and George W. Bush at all costs, which apparently includes sticking it to those who bear the costs of their policies.
LOL... I strike back when people make unfounded attacks...

I understand now. You suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

President Bush doesn't have anything to do with this. You are now showing utter stupidity by bringing such a statement into this argument.

Wal-Mart has deep pockets, and therefore are targeted by unethical asses like yourself.

The law and contracts are there for reasons. To just demand they be changed because it appeals to our emotions is a pretty poor reason.

This is a decision for Wal-Mart or their insurer to make. I can just about guarantee this. Now that people have made them out to be the bad guy, they are less likely to step up and make a charitable contribution that they might have otherwise made. Making a goodwill gesture under duress is not the best interest for a corporation. It lays the groundwork for others to follow.

[SPARKY]

And why should the stock holders and customers of Wal-Mart pay for their stupid decision?

Did you miss my point that they would have been better off to loose? Do you not understand they wouldn't owe Wal-Mart or the Lawyer anything, and not have to go to court again?

Did you miss the quote above that made it clear that they would not have been able to recover a larger judgment?

It's a bit amusing that you deem the decision made to take the cash in hand rather than to risk it all as "stupid."






When I said steal, I meant it as a technicality. Not as a criminal action. You said criminal, not me. I pointed out legal action is being taken to recover the money. Please keep your facts and perspective in check.


If it's theft, where is the criminal charge?




It is not Wal-Marts responsibility.

My God man. This nation is screwed up because of people like you, having an "entitlement mentality."

Funny how it's now an "entitlement" to think that a business might not put a faithful employee who's been seriously injured and her family in a bind, especially after they were forced into a settlement in part due to the fact that the other party had minimal assets. Not to mention that she lost her son on the battlefield. For such a hyperpatriot you certainly don't seem to care about that fact.

The woman lost her son in part due to sycophant morons like you who cheer on wars without putting your own ass on the line. It's not too late to join the good fight; visit your local recruiter.





LOL... I strike back when people make unfounded attacks...

I understand now. You suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

President Bush doesn't have anything to do with this. You are now showing utter stupidity by bringing such a statement into this argument.

Wal-Mart has deep pockets, and therefore are targeted by unethical asses like yourself.

The law and contracts are there for reasons. To just demand they be changed because it appeals to our emotions is a pretty poor reason.

This is a decision for Wal-Mart or their insurer to make. I can just about guarantee this. Now that people have made them out to be the bad guy, they are less likely to step up and make a charitable contribution that they might have otherwise made. Making a goodwill gesture under duress is not the best interest for a corporation. It lays the groundwork for others to follow.

You suffer from Bush's nuts on my chin syndrome. You have no concept of service, of ethics, or of anything that would be noble, wise, and right.

Bush has destroyed the GOP in no small part due to useful idiots such as yourself.

If making goodwill gestures is not in the interest of Wal-Mart why exactly do they have a foundation set up for that express purpose? Duh.

[Wild Cobra]

source (http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/10301/maurice-graham.html)
Interesting. They managed to show the trucking company at partial fault when the accident was her fault:


Mrs. Shank was driving her mini van on a straight and level state highway in clear weather during the day and apparently made the decision to turn around and go back the way she had come. She pulled over and pulled back onto the highway to turn around, and as she did so a transport truck coming down the highway saw her, but did not stop or swerve out of the way. It was our position that the driver had enough time and distance to swerve or stop, but he didn't. He struck her broadside.

We established with an accident reconstruction expert that the truck driver had had room enough to stop or swerve even though she had pulled out onto the highway, and also that he had been driving somewhat over the speed limit. In Missouri, we define this as a "comparative fault" case. There was no doubt that Mrs. Shank had made a mistake, but the truck driver had also contributed to this unfortunate incident. It was a contested case that required accident reconstruction experts.
I don't care that thy convinced a jury the truck had time. They don't turn on a dime or stop as fast as some people think. She pulled out in fromt of him, and he might have had traffic to the side! It would be reasonable under some cases to also expect she would get out of his way in time. Truck tivers mis calculation in some possibilities, but still... She caused the accident!

This next part, he speaks of compassion. Why isn't he then compassionate, and charge less of a legal fee?


It's our position that the court needs to look at what comprises an "equitable recovery" in cases like these. The court ruled that full recovery of Wal-Mart's expenses was an equitable recovery, but in the original case, we had to bring in outside lawyers to help us get the best settlement we could. The interpretation of the federal law was not as clear then as it is now; there was a division in the interpretation of cases—some cases upheld employers getting all their money back, others didn't. The law was uncertain then.

Wal-Mart waited three years before filing for their settlement. I don't know why, but it was very strange that they would wait three years before they would ask for their money back. They said they were entitled to a full recovery of their medical expenses; they said that they were entitled to all of it, but we argued that they had to share in the employee's loss. They said they wouldn't; they said they were entitled to full recovery and that's what they received.

Now as for waiting three years? Maybe they did, and what is left out? Did Wal-Mart send letters for three years asking for the money back, and was forced into a lawsuit? What is left out is as important as what is said. I'm likely correct here since it wasn't addressed in a manner to stop such a question.

I also find it ironic that the lawyer expects no recovery to Wal-Mart with a settlement that is not equitable. Under the same standards, he should not take payment for a settlement that is not equitable!

I will assume the following:

$1,000,000 settlement

$350,000 attorney fees

$100,000 attorney costs

$550,000 net settlement

$133,000 spent (move to a wheelchair friendly house, daily care, etc.)

Wal-Mart gets $470,000 back. The net settlement is $530,000:

$100,000 cost

$185,500 attorney fees (35% of $530k)

$244,500 left for the family.

Isn't 35% of the recovered money net more fair than 35% money recovered gross?

[Wild Cobra]

Man, I hate it when people who get hit by semi-tractor trailors drive up the cost of health care for the rest of us...
Especially when they pull out in from of one. Ever drive one? Know how long they take to stop, how slow they are to swerve without losing control?

[SPARKY]

Blame the victim. Predictable. Hell, she shouldn't have been driving on a public road! Those are for businesses to move their goods. How dare she get in the way of commerce.

Blame the attorney, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

Blame the victim. Predictable. Hell, she shouldn't have been driving on a public road! Those are for businesses to move their goods. How dare she get in the way of commerce.

Blame the attorney, etc.
I'm just being real. Stop being a propagandist activist for a moment and look at the facts.

Are you denying the claim by her lawyer that she pulled out in front of the truck?

You know, such an incident should make us all want to increase our medical coverage on our automobile insurance. Our fault or others in an accident, we should protect ourselves.

[SPARKY]

I'm just being real. Stop being a propagandist activist for a moment and look at the facts.

Are you denying the claim by her lawyer that she pulled out in front of the truck?

You know, such an incident should make us all want to increase our medical coverage on our automobile insurance. Our fault or others in an accident, we should protect ourselves.


Real? What's real? The world in which the average working stiff has to fend for themselves in some kind of objectivist fantasyland?

Once upon a time conservatives believed in doing the right thing, regardless of what was technically legal. If you find yourself turning to the law to divine what is right in this case you are neither conservative nor right.

[clambake]

just relax.

wal-mart dropped the suit.

[IceColdBrewski]

Damage control.


http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/01/848981.aspx


Update: Wal-Mart no longer seeks money from disabled ex-worker
Posted on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 6:26 PM PT
By Rich Gardella and Lisa Myers, NBC News

On Saturday's Nightly News, NBC News Senior Investigative Correspondent Lisa Myers reported on Deborah Shank, a former employee of Wal-Mart permanently disabled in a car accident eight years ago. Wal-Mart's health plan had moved to collect some of the settlement money she won in a lawsuit against a trucking firm in order to reimburse itself for the more than $470,000 in medical expenses it had paid for Shank.

Although it had just contacted Shank's attorney to begin the process of actually collecting the money from Shank and her husband, Wal-Mart announced Tuesday it had reversed its decision and said that it no longer will seek any reimbursement from the Shanks.

[Wild Cobra]

Real? What's real? The world in which the average working stiff has to fend for themselves in some kind of objectivist fantasyland?

Once upon a time conservatives believed in doing the right thing, regardless of what was technically legal. If you find yourself turning to the law to divine what is right in this case you are neither conservative nor right.
No. I hate the law at times. It is there and if we don't like it, we change it.

You are an idiot, assuming I determine right and wrong by law. The law is seldom moral, but it is the law. I was not trying to say the law in this case was moral. Actually, I'd say the trucking company got screwed here. Still, morality does not dictate we take from one to give to another. That in itself is immoral.

It is Wal-Mart's choice to give their money away if they want to. It is evil to force them to do so. They would be showing a moral character to help their former employee, but it should not be demanded. It should be by choice.

[PixelPusher]

It is Wal-Mart's choice to give their money away if they want to. It is evil to force them to do so. They would be showing a moral character to help their former employee, but it should not be demanded. It should be by choice.
Corporations are not moral beings, they should not be given the benefit of doubt as if they were.

[Wild Cobra]

just relax.

wal-mart dropped the suit.
Good for them. It shows they do have moral character. I knew that, didn't some of the rest of you? I'll bet not. Too many of you hate Wal-Mart because you are liberal and/or union lemmings, and think as your masters say.

Now before anyone says they should have done so earlier, No. I disagree.

Wal-Mart took it to a court win and didn't change their stance until all appeals by the family were exhausted. Now that the precedent is set in Wal-Mart's favor, they can let the family keep the money without fear of this happening again by force. They keep their charitable choice his way.

I'll bet if we saw the whole letter that it would point out needed to set the precident.

[Wild Cobra]

Corporations are not moral beings, they should not be given the benefit of doubt as if they were.
You should keep that bigoted viewpoint to yourself when it comes to Wal-Mart, because you are wrong. They plan green, contribute to local charities, and do other good things that most corporations don't.

Looks like you are one of the "I hate Wal-Mart lemmings..."

[PixelPusher]

Good for them. It shows they do have moral character. I knew that, didn't some of the rest of you? I'll bet not. Too many of you hate Wal-Mart because you are liberal and/or union lemmings, and think as your masters say.

PR calculus is not "moral character".

[PixelPusher]

You should keep that bigoted viewpoint to yourself when it comes to Wal-Mart, because you are wrong. They plan green, contribute to local charities, and do other good things that most corporations don't.

Looks like you are one of the "I hate Wal-Mart lemmings..."
My brother is a manager at Wal-Mart, so I understand the difference between the real life human beings who work for Wal-Mart, and the corporation itself, which is not a human being and shouldn't be confused as such. Legal entities aren't moral beings, they don't act out of a "moral" sense.

[IceColdBrewski]

Good for them. It shows they do have moral character. I knew that, didn't some of the rest of you?

Please tell me you're not that naive.

Don't think for one second that wally world wouldn't have raped this family for all they were worth if this story hadn't gone national.

[PixelPusher]

Please tell me you're not that naive.

Don't think for one second that wally world wouldn't have raped this family for all they were worth if this story hadn't gone national.
Speaking ill of a corporation make you a "bigot", doncha-know?

[Brutalis]

Okay.

Her son dying has shit to do with Wal-Mart.

Her problems, again, have shit to do with Wal-Mart.

She signed on the dotted line about her heath plan while working for them. Once again, her problem.

Sure bad PR, but it won't make a damn difference to people they will just keep earning more and more.

This is all perfectly legal and to me, right.

I am truly sorry for her personal losses. They have jack to do with what Wal-Mart is doing to her however and in court of law they careless about your personal problems.

Wal-Mart is just doing its thing, no biggie.

[Brutalis]

Blame the victim. Predictable. Hell, she shouldn't have been driving on a public road! Those are for businesses to move their goods. How dare she get in the way of commerce.

Blame the attorney, etc.
lolersk8z
lame

[IceColdBrewski]

Okay.

Her son dying has shit to do with Wal-Mart.

Her problems, again, have shit to do with Wal-Mart.

She signed on the dotted line about her heath plan while working for them. Once again, her problem.

Sure bad PR, but it won't make a damn difference to people they will just keep earning more and more.

This is all perfectly legal and to me, right.

I am truly sorry for her personal losses. They have jack to do with what Wal-Mart is doing to her however and in court of law they careless about your personal problems.

Wal-Mart is just doing its thing, no biggie.

Really. Wally world was just about to bend this brain damaged lady over and stick it up her pipe just because the fine print said they could.

Just beacuse they can legally do it doesn't make it right.

[smeagol]

Some human beings are fucked up.

[Extra Stout]

An important tenet of 21st-century conservatism is that the large multinational corporation is always right. If it is technically legal for them to do something, nobody has any right to criticize them on moral grounds.

For example, if the executive branch passes an order that says a company's employees are immune if they gang-rape a 23-year-old woman in a storage container, then it's perfectly fine! Who are you to say it's wrong? That company provides jobs! Shut up, you bleeding heart socialist!

Also, if a major investment bank consistently makes so many stupid, high-risk decisions that it teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, and the government decides to bail it out, stop your Marxist whining about "moral risk." So what if the investment class makes the same unethical and irresponsible decisions as the underclass does? It's not that their vast resources and corrupt influence insulate them from the consequences of bad decisions unlike the poor, it's... their productivity! They generate value... somehow...

Look, the investor class is just more important than you, 'K? Deal with it. And God Bless America!

[Don Quixote]

Hmmm ... you might be correct in saying that some conservatives adhere to the principle of "might makes right." I'm not sure, however, that large corporations are always right in conservative thinking. I'm sure the reasonable minds at the Heritage Foundation and in the pages of the National Review would disagree with you, and each other, on that one. Perhaps you mean to say, "conservatives tend to side with large multinationals, but not always."

On the other hand, who says the "little guy" is always right, as liberal orthodoxy generally assumes?

[SPARKY]

An important tenet of 21st-century conservatism is that the large multinational corporation is always right. If it is technically legal for them to do something, nobody has any right to criticize them on moral grounds.

For example, if the executive branch passes an order that says a company's employees are immune if they gang-rape a 23-year-old woman in a storage container, then it's perfectly fine! Who are you to say it's wrong? That company provides jobs! Shut up, you bleeding heart socialist!

Also, if a major investment bank consistently makes so many stupid, high-risk decisions that it teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, and the government decides to bail it out, stop your Marxist whining about "moral risk." So what if the investment class makes the same unethical and irresponsible decisions as the underclass does? It's not that their vast resources and corrupt influence insulate them from the consequences of bad decisions unlike the poor, it's... their productivity! They generate value... somehow...

Look, the investor class is just more important than you, 'K? Deal with it. And God Bless America!

I'm not sure when doing what was right ceased to be a part of the conservative tradition. Often, it was central. If we privately and freely do not apply common sense and seek to do what is right on our own then inherently the government will lay claim. Further, helping out your neighbor, your friend, your employee, hell, the stranger on the street was part of how a free, civil society should function. Nothing compelled you to do so legally, other than a concern for your fellow citizen, and of course the notion that someday you may be in need of help.

[SPARKY]

Hmmm ... you might be correct in saying that some conservatives adhere to the principle of "might makes right." I'm not sure, however, that large corporations are always right in conservative thinking. I'm sure the reasonable minds at the Heritage Foundation and in the pages of the National Review would disagree with you, and each other, on that one. Perhaps you mean to say, "conservatives tend to side with large multinationals, but not always."

On the other hand, who says the "little guy" is always right, as liberal orthodoxy generally assumes?


Right. The Heritage Foundation tends to be concerned when the big multinational extends some employee benefit to the partners of homosexual employees. Then morality and ethics matter.

As for National Review, I recall a book by Buckley written about 20 years ago entitled Gratitude. In it he proposed a system of public service for youth. Had the name on the cover been, let's say, Bill Bradley, then naturally it would have been regarded as a socialistic tome by the staff of today's National Review.

To the extent that the powerful shirk any sense of duty, of ethical behavior in business dealings, the greater will be the call for the government to intervene and counter this imbalance.

[Don Quixote]

To the extent that the powerful shirk any sense of duty, of ethical behavior in business dealings, the greater will be the call for the government to intervene and counter this imbalance.

Yes. What is needed is virtue. In the absence of virtue, people suffer and clamor for power to correct the problem. Hence, more government control, which government is more than happy to do. I think the Founding Fathers understood this concept beautifully -- self-rule only works when the ones doing the ruling (us) are morally virtuous.

Now ... how are we to regain this "virtue," especially after the Left has so effectively deconstructed it, and some on the Right have visibly failed to pursue and live it?

That is the million-$ question.

[Pistons_In_7]

Wal Mart still wins, now it can justify a medical insurance rate hike passed on to its employees to make sure they get that money back one way or another.

[boutons_]

Retail giant drops controversial injured worker claim

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/WalMart_Drops_Injured_Worker_Claim_0401.html

Just another business expense.

[Wild Cobra]

Please tell me you're not that naive.

Don't think for one second that wally world wouldn't have raped this family for all they were worth if this story hadn't gone national.
You are just dead wrong. I am not naive, but open minded. I don't believe the story being national made a difference, but I acknowledge it might have. Can you at least acknowledge there could be merit to the viewpoints I shared? If not, you are hardheaded and not open to possibilities that do exist.

[smeagol]

Further, helping out your neighbor, your friend, your employee, hell, the stranger on the street was part of how a free, civil society should function.

This is pretty much what Chrstianity is all about. And Conservatives claim to be Christians.

Something is not adding up.

[boutons_]

"helping out your neighbor, your friend, your employee, hell, the stranger on the street was part of how a free, civil society should function."

True only at the level of the individual. Silly at any other level.

It doesn't hold for corporations, which have no moral, ethical, religious objectives, or responsibilities to the stockholders, have no conscience. They exist to make profit, everything else is secondary. If profit is at risk, everything else is sacrificed.

The classic work is "Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics" Reinhold Niebuhr, 1934

[SAGambler]

So what if it was settled?

When exactly are the criminal charges for theft to be filed?

Why do I feel like I just stepped into a Dickens novel?

Because you are a liberal. And liberals want everything done by emotions. I have never met a liberal in my life, that could use logic to reach a conclusion. To a liberal 2 plus 2 only totals 4, if your heart and your emotions tell you that is right.

[101A]

An important tenet of 21st-century conservatism is that the large multinational corporation is always right. If it is technically legal for them to do something, nobody has any right to criticize them on moral grounds.

For example, if the executive branch passes an order that says a company's employees are immune if they gang-rape a 23-year-old woman in a storage container, then it's perfectly fine! Who are you to say it's wrong? That company provides jobs! Shut up, you bleeding heart socialist!

Also, if a major investment bank consistently makes so many stupid, high-risk decisions that it teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, and the government decides to bail it out, stop your Marxist whining about "moral risk." So what if the investment class makes the same unethical and irresponsible decisions as the underclass does? It's not that their vast resources and corrupt influence insulate them from the consequences of bad decisions unlike the poor, it's... their productivity! They generate value... somehow...

Look, the investor class is just more important than you, 'K? Deal with it. And God Bless America!There might be a class of conservatism that believes this way, but many certainly do not. Wal Mart's actions, as has been described in this thread, have ramifications far beyond this individual case. Medical espense payments by group insurance plans DO NOT happen in a vacuum; especially plans under ERISA - regulated by the DOL. Comparing that to gang-rape? C'mon.

Also, much of modern conservatism relies on a specific distrust of almost all govt. action; whomever it is designed to benefit or punish.

[101A]

To the extent that the powerful shirk any sense of duty, of ethical behavior in business dealings, the greater will be the call for the government to intervene and counter this imbalance.To the extent that the powerful shirk any sense of duty, of ethical behavior in business dealings, the greater the consumers ought to be paying attention to such matters, and force the corporations to feel it where in the only place they care about - the bottom line! Continuing to frequent those corporations, and give them money simply gives them more power to weild influence over the amoral, incompetent government you are looking to for salvation.

[xrayzebra]

Well for all you folks worried about wal-mart doing the right thing:

The brain damaged lady can keep the money.

Wal-Mart story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/walmart.decision/?iref=hpmostpop)

[101A]

On Tuesday, Wal-Mart said in a letter to Jim Shank that it is modifying its health care plan to allow "more discretion" in individual cases."

I'd like to see the wording they come up with for that amendment; it could be useful.

[SPARKY]

Because you are a liberal. And liberals want everything done by emotions. I have never met a liberal in my life, that could use logic to reach a conclusion. To a liberal 2 plus 2 only totals 4, if your heart and your emotions tell you that is right.

I'm a liberal? That's a new one (unless you mean in the classical sense, but I assume you do not). I guess that's why my voter registration card is stamped "Republican."

Try again.

[SPARKY]

"helping out your neighbor, your friend, your employee, hell, the stranger on the street was part of how a free, civil society should function."

True only at the level of the individual. Silly at any other level.

It doesn't hold for corporations, which have no moral, ethical, religious objectives, or responsibilities to the stockholders, have no conscience. They exist to make profit, everything else is secondary. If profit is at risk, everything else is sacrificed.

The classic work is "Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics" Reinhold Niebuhr, 1934

Not really when you consider that most large companies have set up charitable foundations and many do provide employees with the flexibility to engage in charitable activities.

[clambake]

Well for all you folks worried about wal-mart doing the right thing:

The brain damaged lady can keep the money.

Wal-Mart story (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/walmart.decision/?iref=hpmostpop)
try to keep up ray.

[clambake]

An important tenet of 21st-century conservatism is that the large multinational corporation is always right. If it is technically legal for them to do something, nobody has any right to criticize them on moral grounds.

For example, if the executive branch passes an order that says a company's employees are immune if they gang-rape a 23-year-old woman in a storage container, then it's perfectly fine! Who are you to say it's wrong? That company provides jobs! Shut up, you bleeding heart socialist!

Also, if a major investment bank consistently makes so many stupid, high-risk decisions that it teeters on the edge of bankruptcy, and the government decides to bail it out, stop your Marxist whining about "moral risk." So what if the investment class makes the same unethical and irresponsible decisions as the underclass does? It's not that their vast resources and corrupt influence insulate them from the consequences of bad decisions unlike the poor, it's... their productivity! They generate value... somehow...

Look, the investor class is just more important than you, 'K? Deal with it. And God Bless America!
:clap this is killer comedy :clap

[RandomGuy]

I'm not sure when doing what was right ceased to be a part of the conservative tradition. Often, it was central. If we privately and freely do not apply common sense and seek to do what is right on our own then inherently the government will lay claim. Further, helping out your neighbor, your friend, your employee, hell, the stranger on the street was part of how a free, civil society should function. Nothing compelled you to do so legally, other than a concern for your fellow citizen, and of course the notion that someday you may be in need of help.

This is the reason that I have formed the opinion that the "conservative" movement in the US has become morallly bankrupt somewhere along the way.

My take on what "conservatives" tend to say and do, is that they seem to be more concerned with money than human beings. They also take rather short-sighted policies that seem to invariably miss the wider picture.

To be fair, there is no shortage of people on the left that do this as well, but they seem to be far outweighed/outnumbered on the left/center-left by people with a bit more common sense.

[Extra Stout]

I love how people are so programmed to respond. Good dog! You've listened well! If any of you say anything bad about a large corporation, obviously clearly you are a godless liberal who wants the government to intervene. There are only two possible positions:

1) Trust the perfect virtue and selfless love of corporate executives

2) Profess Marxism

No, that is not a false dichotomy. You're just a stupid liberal thinking with your emotions if you say that.

Don't suggest "If they're going to try to recover the money, because of some legal precedent it would set if they didn't, then this would be a great opportunity for their charitable foundation to step in and make things right."

No! Doing what's right is not the issue here! What's important are arcane legal issues nobody can understand except us smart people who understand how what appears to be screwing over a disabled lady is really authentic Christian ethics!

Really, we should be lamenting that Wal-Mart caved on this lawsuit, even though apparently it will have no impact whatsoever on the health coverage of the rest of their employees. It's the principle of the thing. "I'm entitled to what's coming to me, and I'm going to stop at nothing to get it" is the heart of the Christian message.

Also, in the hypothetical case that a large multinational corporation were to screw you over, it's still your fault because even though corporate executives are perfect in their selfless love, you should have been paying attention.

[RandomGuy]

[Helping others] is pretty much what Chrstianity is all about. And Conservatives claim to be Christians.

Something is not adding up.

My point exactly.

Many Evangelicals and other deeply religious people have begun to realize that when the Republican party spends more energy on "gay marriage" than they do on say, helping abused children or the severely handicapped, something is awry.

It almost seems at times that the priorities of the Hilsburo Baptist Church seem to be driving things, rather than what Jesus actually said and did.

[Extra Stout]

It is totally the responsibility of the consumer to call corporations on the carpet if they were to misbehave (theoretically, since it practice it never happens). However, each individual consumer needs to stumble upon evidence of that misbehavior independently through rigorous personal research. It is wrong for anybody to speak ill of a large corporation or communicate its malfeasance to others in an effort to persuade them not to patronize said corporation. To do so is exactly the same as having the government run the economy!

[clambake]

I love how people are so programmed to respond. Good dog! You've listened well! If any of you say anything bad about a large corporation, obviously clearly you are a godless liberal who wants the government to intervene. There are only two possible positions:

1) Trust the perfect virtue and selfless love of corporate executives

2) Profess Marxism

No, that is not a false dichotomy. You're just a stupid liberal thinking with your emotions if you say that.

Don't suggest "If they're going to try to recover the money, because of some legal precedent it would set if they didn't, then this would be a great opportunity for their charitable foundation to step in and make things right."

No! Doing what's right is not the issue here! What's important are arcane legal issues nobody can understand except us smart people who understand how what appears to be screwing over a disabled lady is really authentic Christian ethics!

Really, we should be lamenting that Wal-Mart caved on this lawsuit, even though apparently it will have no impact whatsoever on the health coverage of the rest of their employees. It's the principle of the thing. "I'm entitled to what's coming to me, and I'm going to stop at nothing to get it" is the heart of the Christian message.

Also, in the hypothetical case that a large multinational corporation were to screw you over, it's still your fault because even though corporate executives are perfect in their selfless love, you should have been paying attention.
you're on a roll. could you please give us the entire verbal autopsy of present day conservatism?

[RandomGuy]

"Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times... we have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation...
We wanted you to know that Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with you to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care...

We are sorry for any additional stress this uncertainty has placed on you and your family.




Wal-Mart's reversal came as shock to Shank's ex-husband.

"I thought it was an April Fool's joke," he told CNN.

"I (would) just like to let them know that they did the right thing. I just wish it hadn't taken so long," Shank said. "But I thank them and I hope they come through with all that they said they're going to do.


This resolution has already been pointed out.

The left will say "they only did it because of the bad publicity was going to hurt their bottom line"

That is probably fairly close to the truth, but I would be willing to bet that senior management probably didn't know about this until the publicity, and are decent enough people to have realized that not only was this bad for the bottom line, it was simply wrong.

[Extra Stout]

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

And they replied unto him, "Wherefore hast thou done this, O Lord? Canst thou not see how verily we provide a useful service unto these worshippers?

"Yea, for it is arduous to bring an unblemished beast so long a way. We allow the people instead to bring money and purchase their animals for sacrifice here!

"And, verily, knowest thou not that to disrupt our changing of money and selling of doves and beasts would bring woe upon the Judaean economy? Wishest thou, Lord, that Judaeans lose their jobs?"

And Jesus said, "I suppose you have a point." And he helped them to right their tables anew.

[SPARKY]

I love how people are so programmed to respond. Good dog! You've listened well! If any of you say anything bad about a large corporation, obviously clearly you are a godless liberal who wants the government to intervene. There are only two possible positions:

1) Trust the perfect virtue and selfless love of corporate executives

2) Profess Marxism

No, that is not a false dichotomy. You're just a stupid liberal thinking with your emotions if you say that.

Don't suggest "If they're going to try to recover the money, because of some legal precedent it would set if they didn't, then this would be a great opportunity for their charitable foundation to step in and make things right."

No! Doing what's right is not the issue here! What's important are arcane legal issues nobody can understand except us smart people who understand how what appears to be screwing over a disabled lady is really authentic Christian ethics!

Really, we should be lamenting that Wal-Mart caved on this lawsuit, even though apparently it will have no impact whatsoever on the health coverage of the rest of their employees. It's the principle of the thing. "I'm entitled to what's coming to me, and I'm going to stop at nothing to get it" is the heart of the Christian message.

Also, in the hypothetical case that a large multinational corporation were to screw you over, it's still your fault because even though corporate executives are perfect in their selfless love, you should have been paying attention.


http://a.abcnews.com/images/Nightline/nm_osteen_070507_ms.jpg

All hail the Messiah.

[RandomGuy]

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Nightline/nm_osteen_070507_ms.jpg

All hail the Messiah.

I am not a big beleiver in Revalations, but when people look to the UN for the anti-christ, I think they are looking in the wrong place, and should start with jack-offs like this. They make my flesh crawl.

[SPARKY]

Hey, it's good work. If you can find it.

[SPARKY]

And Jesus said to his disciples, "Don't forget to max out your 401(k)s."

[SPARKY]

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/uploaded_images/Hagee-766239.jpg

Behold, unto us a DVD was born. Yours for $29.95+S&H.

[E20]

Sad story, I don't see what Wal-Mart has to gain from this except a measly 400 grand. From an ethical/moral(at least mine) perspective this is completely wrong and from a business standpoint this is stupid.

[E20]

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog/uploaded_images/Hagee-766239.jpg

Behold, unto us a DVD was born. Yours for $29.95+S&H.
LMAO

[Extra Stout]

And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. There were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment wasted like that? For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor." And they scolded her. But Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing. By dumping out this ointment, she props up the price. Now all the other rich people's flasks of nard are more valuable. For you always have the poor with you, and they will always be lazy and unproductive. But you will not always have appreciating asset values."

[E20]

What's with all the references to Jesus?

[Extra Stout]

What's with all the references to Jesus?
These are key Bible passages which explain why most conservative Christians pledge allegiance to big business.

[Don Quixote]

Many Evangelicals and other deeply religious people have begun to realize that when the Republican party spends more energy on "gay marriage" than they do on say, helping abused children or the severely handicapped, something is awry.

It almost seems at times that the priorities of the Hilsburo Baptist Church seem to be driving things, rather than what Jesus actually said and did.


Yes. Quite a few of us conservative evangelicals in the academy are having this debate right now. This is not to say, of course, that we ought to retreat on our convictions about marriage, abortion, etc. But if political activism is the extent of our gospel, then yes, something is seriously wrong.

You'd be happy to know, then, that the Southern Baptist Convention, which runs two mission boards and Samaritan's Purse, does quite alot of work in helping abused children, ministering to the poor and handicapped, and feeding people. Many of my colleagues in the schoolhouse, professors and students alike, have either backgrounds, or will go into, these fields. And, I am proud to report, it was Operation NOAH (another Baptist entity) that gutted my house after the storm -- removing all my walls and furniture, taking away my fence, and cutting down my trees. And our church in Metairie is constantly hosting groups from Baptist churches from all over the country, who come to work here in New Orleans.

Also, we uniformly have a very dim view of Hillsboro. How dare they presume to represent Christ!

[Don Quixote]

These are key Bible passages which explain why most conservative Christians pledge allegiance to big business.

Hmmm ... you may be overstating your case here. It's true that most conservative evangelicals view business somewhat more favorably than they do gummint, but I've never seen the aforementioned Bible passages exegeted in such a way as to proscribe that believers pledge allegiance to big business. Now, some Christians may indeed do so.

On the other hand, there are quite a few evangelicals who are conservative exegetically, socially, and theologically, but are actually Democrats who favor more gummint control over business. So it goes both ways.

[Extra Stout]

Hmmm ... you may be overstating your case here. It's true that most conservative evangelicals view business somewhat more favorably than they do gummint, but I've never seen the aforementioned Bible passages exegeted in such a way as to proscribe that believers pledge allegiance to big business. Now, some Christians may indeed do so.

On the other hand, there are quite a few evangelicals who are conservative exegetically, socially, and theologically, but are actually Democrats who favor more gummint control over business. So it goes both ways.
Your Bible translates those passages wrong. I am firmly in the KSV-only camp (K Street Version).

[RandomGuy]

Yes. Quite a few of us conservative evangelicals in the academy are having this debate right now. This is not to say, of course, that we ought to retreat on our convictions about marriage, abortion, etc. But if political activism is the extent of our gospel, then yes, something is seriously wrong.

You'd be happy to know, then, that the Southern Baptist Convention, which runs two mission boards and Samaritan's Purse, does quite alot of work in helping abused children, ministering to the poor and handicapped, and feeding people. Many of my colleagues in the schoolhouse, professors and students alike, have either backgrounds, or will go into, these fields. And, I am proud to report, it was Operation NOAH (another Baptist entity) that gutted my house after the storm -- removing all my walls and furniture, taking away my fence, and cutting down my trees. And our church in Metairie is constantly hosting groups from Baptist churches from all over the country, who come to work here in New Orleans.

Also, we uniformly have a very dim view of Hillsboro. How dare they presume to represent Christ!

I agree about not going back on principles and keeping perspective on things. Thanks for providing some background information.

I know that there is a lot of good done by Christian charities, and this is something that many Christian-bashers seem to miss.

My take on the whole thing can be summed up in a rather revealing look at the bible allowed by search engines.

If you search just about any version of the Bible for the word "poor", you end
up with hundreds and hundreds of hits.

Search for the words "abomination" or similar such code words for homosexuality, you get somewhere around ten, usually fewer.

This pretty much spells out where the real emphasis of God's message is, even if you never actually get down to reading and thinking about individual passages.

As for the Hilsboro Baptist Chruch: God will judge them for their actions, and I have a feeling they will be in for quite the shock, and feel sorry for them having really lost their way.

[Extra Stout]

If you search just about any version of the Bible for the word "poor", you end up with hundreds and hundreds of hits.

Search for the words "abomination" or similar such code words for homosexuality, you get somewhere around ten, usually fewer.

This pretty much spells out where the real emphasis of God's message is, even if you never actually get down to reading and thinking about individual passages.
I agree that ministering to the poor is more central to the Christian life than disapproving of homosexuality is.

However, ministering to the poor is not the "real emphasis of God's message." If it were, we could just do away with all the trappings of religion and go feed the hungry. A lot of secular liberals dream of the day that would come to pass.

[Don Quixote]

Your Bible translates those passages wrong. I am firmly in the KSV-only camp (K Street Version).

Upon re-reading your passages, I discovered that, yes, you are using readings from the Inspired KSV. I need to read every word closely, I guess. My question: would the Jesus Seminar and Bart Ehrman regard these sayings as authentic?

Second, when I saw "KSV-only", I thought it said "KJV-only." And from a fellow I thought knew better.

There was a fake news report and blog going around about how the eminently reputable Southwestern Seminary in Ft. Worth, led by a well-known professor of church history, was establishing the Center for Landmarkist Research. One of my colleagues nearly had a heart attack, until he remembered it was April Fools' Day.

[clambake]

:lmao i don't know what it is, (steriods, HGH maybe) but Extra Stout is an absolute riot today.

[Extra Stout]

Upon re-reading your passages, I discovered that, yes, you are using readings from the Inspired KSV. I need to read every word closely, I guess. My question: would the Jesus Seminar and Bart Ehrman regard these sayings as authentic?

For these sayings, you have to use the special red, white, and blue beads with the little elephant on them.

[Don Quixote]

I agree that ministering to the poor is more central to the Christian life than disapproving of homosexuality is.

However, ministering to the poor is not the "real emphasis of God's message." If it were, we could just do away with all the trappings of religion and go feed the hungry. A lot of secular liberals dream of the day that would come to pass.

Yes. That's the big area of study right now in the schoolhouse ... how can conservatives minister to people and meet their needs (feeding, clothing, etc.) without abandoning Christian convictions. Liberal churches long ago abandoned evangelism and the gospel (repentence, faith in Christ, a changed life) in favor of what one might call a "social gospel," almost exclusively geared toward ministering to the poor, going good deeds, etc. 20th century fundys, and to a certain extent, evangelicals, went the other way, emphasizing Bible teaching and preaching about Christ as to neglect social ministries.

I would submit that evangelicals do both -- both areas would be much more powerful and effective. Christian convictions feeding social ministries, both being emphasized, neither one neglected.

[Don Quixote]

:lmao i don't know what it is, (steriods, HGH maybe) but Extra Stout is an absolute riot today.

A 20-oz of coffee usually does it for me.

[clambake]

For these sayings, you have to use the special red, white, and blue beads with the little elephant on them.
:lmao my sides are splitting:lmao

[PixelPusher]

Your Bible translates those passages wrong. I am firmly in the KSV-only camp (K Street Version).
Does the KSV illuminate Jesus Christ's vision for privatized healthcare? For example, what was the co-pay that the blind man had to pay for the mud-o-saliva vision restoration? And was the resurrection of Lazerus meant to emphasis the importance of term life insurance?

[SAGambler]

Let's look at the facts as they have come to light.

1. The woman was the primary cause of the accident, even though they got the company to buy into somehow their driver was the cause, since he didn't stop "quick enough".

2. The woman was very badly hurt and the insurance provided by Wal Mart kicked in and paid every last cent of the hospital bill, no questions asked.

3. The woman either sued or threatened to sue, but SETTLED for something between $700,000 and $1,000,000. Her decision.

4. Wal Mart, who provided the money for her hospital bills, now demands, per her contract, to recoup the money, since it has no been recouped from the trucking company. Well, $417,000 anyway. The rest has been spent on "legal fees". In other words the lawyer took 35 or 40 percent of the total settlement as his "contingent fee".

5. Hubby says no. Lawyer says no. And apparently the woman who has no memory says no.

6 Hubby, Lawyer, and victim now decide they can use public pressure to get Wal Mart to back off. The is known as EXTORTION. But even in extorting money, we can't stop with the victim of an accident. We have to throw is how her son was killed in Iraq, and also how her hubby is fighting prostrate cancer. Now we really have the publics attention.

7. But just in case it doesn't work, hubby decides to divorce her. Why? So she can receive LARGER medicaid payments. In any other welfare situation in this country, this would be known as DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT.

8. So Wal Mart does the WRONG thing, gives in to the extortion and lets her keep the windfall, paving the way for many other lawsuits to follow.

Just keep in mind. This won't cost Wal Mart on goddamn dime. It will cost you, me, and anyone else that shops at a Wal Mart or Sams Club. Did you hurt the woman? Did I? I'm pretty sure my neighbor had nothing to do with her being in the situation she's in, but guess who is going to pay the tab in the long run?

May I suggest all you bleeding hearts write a big check. A really big check. After all, she needs it more than you do. You can find a web site to send the money to her. And I'm sure now they can probably extort the government not to tax them on it. See, they have PUBLIC OPINION on their side.

[Spurminator]

It will cost you, me, and anyone else that shops at a Wal Mart or Sams Club.

Oh my god they're gonna raise the price of my Snacky Puffs!!!!

[PixelPusher]

L
Just keep in mind. This won't cost Wal Mart on goddamn dime. It will cost you, me, and anyone else that shops at a Wal Mart or Sams Club. Did you hurt the woman? Did I? I'm pretty sure my neighbor had nothing to do with her being in the situation she's in, but guess who is going to pay the tab in the long run?

Yes, that 400K from the employee health plan will profoundly affect prices at Walmart all across America.

[SPARKY]

Her husband should have taken her out back and shot her to remove the non-producer from our society. He could have picked up the rifle and ammo at a local Wal-Mart. Now he'd have to pay for that, because we wouldn't want to see anyone forced to pay one hundred millionth of a cent more on the latest Brad Paisley CD.

[Extra Stout]

Yes. That's the big area of study right now in the schoolhouse ... how can conservatives minister to people and meet their needs (feeding, clothing, etc.) without abandoning Christian convictions. Liberal churches long ago abandoned evangelism and the gospel (repentence, faith in Christ, a changed life) in favor of what one might call a "social gospel," almost exclusively geared toward ministering to the poor, going good deeds, etc. 20th century fundys, and to a certain extent, evangelicals, went the other way, emphasizing Bible teaching and preaching about Christ as to neglect social ministries.

I would submit that evangelicals do both -- both areas would be much more powerful and effective. Christian convictions feeding social ministries, both being emphasized, neither one neglected.
Go through your theology and scrub out every hint of dualism the way a Jew scrubs out leaven from his house the day before Passover. That is a big help in maintaing Christian convictions while ministering to physical needs. Then ministry becomes a symbol of God's coming regeneration of all creation, much as baptism symbolizes the new life in Christ.

[SPARKY]

8. So Wal Mart does the WRONG thing, gives in to the extortion and lets her keep the windfall, paving the way for many other lawsuits to follow.

Oh yes, a $400K "windfall" to provide for the care of someone who could possibly live 30 more years and require institutional care.

[Extra Stout]

Just keep in mind. This won't cost Wal Mart on goddamn dime. It will cost you, me, and anyone else that shops at a Wal Mart or Sams Club. Did you hurt the woman? Did I? I'm pretty sure my neighbor had nothing to do with her being in the situation she's in, but guess who is going to pay the tab in the long run?

May I suggest all you bleeding hearts write a big check. A really big check. After all, she needs it more than you do. You can find a web site to send the money to her. And I'm sure now they can probably extort the government not to tax them on it. See, they have PUBLIC OPINION on their side.
You're onto something. Can you imagine how much more disposable income each of us could have if we simply let all disabled people who can't afford their own health care die? This is truly the Good News!

Really, it would be even better if we could find some productive use for their corpses, since their lives are so unproductive. Could we use them as fuel? For greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life to fill up his friend's SUV.

[Extra Stout]

Does anybody remember SAGambler's eloquent polemic against the government's bailout of Bear Sterns, which will cost taxpayers $3.2 billion? There must be a lot of investment bankers who are disabled, needing long-term care out there.

[SPARKY]

Apparently being a "conservative" today consists of worshipping Wal-Mart's consolidated income statement.

[SPARKY]

Does anybody remember SAGambler's eloquent polemic against the government's bailout of Bear Sterns, which will cost taxpayers $3.2 billion? There must be a lot of investment bankers who are disabled, needing long-term care out there.

Ah, you mean the Fed's gift to JPM and its shareholders?

[SPARKY]

Just a thought, when is Wal-Mart going to pay back the various municipal and county governments around the US who give it local sales and property tax breaks when it locates a store in their jurisdiction?

[Wild Cobra]

A 20-oz of coffee usually does it for me.
Make mine a couple quad shot Mexican Mocha's please, unless it's from Seattle's Best. Then a single 20 ounce will have enough....

[Wild Cobra]

This is the reason that I have formed the opinion that the "conservative" movement in the US has become morallly bankrupt somewhere along the way.

My take on what "conservatives" tend to say and do, is that they seem to be more concerned with money than human beings. They also take rather short-sighted policies that seem to invariably miss the wider picture.

To be fair, there is no shortage of people on the left that do this as well, but they seem to be far outweighed/outnumbered on the left/center-left by people with a bit more common sense.
Well, remember that a corporate structure has a mix of people. Being a corporation doesn't make them conservative. I think the Walton's are more liberal than conservative, but I may be wrong. There are times when you have to separate emotions from decisions. That's why we have the so-called "separation of church and state" too. Some thing's just don't mix. Conservatives as a whole understand that more than liberals. It doesn't make us morally bankrupt.



That is probably fairly close to the truth, but I would be willing to bet that senior management probably didn't know about this until the publicity, and are decent enough people to have realized that not only was this bad for the bottom line, it was simply wrong.
Now you say something very reasonable. I agree this is likely the truth. Those who hold the purse strings of Wal-Mart are good caring people. Management however is paid to look at the bottom line.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, that 400K from the employee health plan will profoundly affect prices at Walmart all across America.
Go back to my posting about setting a precedent, and consider this again. If it wasn't Wal-Marts decision, then this could happen frequently to them for big figure losses. Large corporations become magnets for fraud and theft. This now makes it their decision, as a charity, rather than an obligation.

Do some research on insurance fraud and tell me this doesn't avoid potential scams.

[PixelPusher]

Go back to my posting about setting a precedent, and consider this again. If it wasn't Wal-Marts decision, then this could happen frequently to them for big figure losses. Large corporations become magnets for fraud and theft. This now makes it their decision, as a charity, rather than an obligation.

Do some research on insurance fraud and tell me this doesn't avoid potential scams.
Ah, the old "Get your brains bashed at work so you can live the rest of your days as a nursing home vegetable" scam.

I'm sure thousands of scam artists are rushing to apply for a job at Wal-Mart after reading about this one.

[SPARKY]

Ah, the old "Get your brains bashed at work so you can live the rest of your days as a nursing home vegetable" scam.

I'm sure thousands of scam artists are rushing to apply for a job at Wal-Mart after reading about this one.


Right. He's at least the 3rd poster in this thread who has referred to getting $400K to cover full-time care for a 52 year old for the rest of her life as a "windfall" or the fruits of a "scam."

Man, we need some posters to change their handles up in here. Here's a couple off the top of my head:

Inspector Javert
Ebeneezer

[Don Quixote]

Fine. Conservatives are morally bankrupt. Fair enough.

And is the solution liberalism?

[Extra Stout]

ooh, good point there, DQ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

[Kermit]

Extra Stout in this thread = http://usera.imagecave.com/otching/new/billhicks.jpg

[clambake]

no doubt, ES is on fire in this thread.

[Wild Cobra]

Ah, the old "Get your brains bashed at work so you can live the rest of your days as a nursing home vegetable" scam.

I'm sure thousands of scam artists are rushing to apply for a job at Wal-Mart after reading about this one.
My God... Are you really that daft?

No. I'm talking about the process of insurance payout. The scam can be anything insurance related. Some people submit claims that have no merit and get paid. If a company doesn't have the right to collect a payment back when paid by someone else, it makes for even more scam possibilites. Double dippers!

Stop being so narrow minded please.

[Findog]

You stay classy, WalMart.

[SAGambler]

Ah, the old "Get your brains bashed at work so you can live the rest of your days as a nursing home vegetable" scam.

I'm sure thousands of scam artists are rushing to apply for a job at Wal-Mart after reading about this one.

Do you think Wal Mart is the ONLY corporation in the world? How many can you name off the top of your head. 500? 1000? 5000? And if this happens to every one of them?

Sure, Wal Mart is large enough to withstand a half million bucks. Others aren't.

See the problem is, you want to look at this as a single one time scenario. It isn't.

No one has to rush to apply for a job at Wal Mart.

Would you think it fair to say that with the current employees that Wal Mart has, it is feasible to say that in the next 12 months, this same scenario of one of them being involved in a disabling automobile accident could happen 12 times? So now we are talking 6 million or thereabouts. At what point is enough, enough? The problem is, you don't look at things in the big picture. Only on a case by case basis.

And to the poster who made reference to my "rant" or rather non-rant about the government bailing out some corporation, let me make it clear. I hated it when it began with them bailing out Chrysler and I hate it when they do it now for other corporations. They are there to make money. Period. If they can't accomplish that on their own, then they need to fold. Not be bailed out by the government. But they started by bailing out one, so now they find them in a position to having to do the same for others. Kind of like this Wal Mart thingy.

[SPARKY]

Then we can expect Wal-Mart to cease demanding local tax breaks for new stores?

Funny how cutting a working class family with a series of misfortune some slack is the same as the Fed providing a multi-billion dollar gift to JPMorgan Chase.

[SPARKY]

Clearly Wal-Mart is at risk of being pursued for "windfalls" from others who are brain damaged and lost a son in Iraq.

[RandomGuy]

I agree that ministering to the poor is more central to the Christian life than disapproving of homosexuality is.

However, ministering to the poor is not the "real emphasis of God's message." If it were, we could just do away with all the trappings of religion and go feed the hungry. A lot of secular liberals dream of the day that would come to pass.

I meant "emphasis of God's message" relative to the issues at hand. I was comparing relative emphasis on things, as opposed to trying to distill the entire thing down. I realize that I didn't make that clear, sorry.

[PixelPusher]

Do you think Wal Mart is the ONLY corporation in the world? How many can you name off the top of your head. 500? 1000? 5000? And if this happens to every one of them?

Sure, Wal Mart is large enough to withstand a half million bucks. Others aren't.

See the problem is, you want to look at this as a single one time scenario. It isn't.

No one has to rush to apply for a job at Wal Mart.

Would you think it fair to say that with the current employees that Wal Mart has, it is feasible to say that in the next 12 months, this same scenario of one of them being involved in a disabling automobile accident could happen 12 times? So now we are talking 6 million or thereabouts. At what point is enough, enough? The problem is, you don't look at things in the big picture. Only on a case by case basis.

You and Wild Cobra's assertion that this will lead to some apocalyptic slippery slope for corporations everywhere is a paranoid delusion. A "special case" is exactly what this is, and Wal-Mart's decision not to pursue the money is predicated on the special circumstances of this case and won't affect their policies going forward. Your hypothetical 12 annual automobile accidents will be handled exactly like all the other automobile accidents in Wal-marts history: on a case by case basis, because they all don't involve life altering brain damage, 3rd party settlements or media attention.

And I'm still waiting for Wild Cobra to explain the "scam" here. Spending the rest of your life as a vegetable in a nursing home sounds like a pretty shitty scam to me.

[boutons_]

It was Wal-mart's choice, not a legal decision and precedent.

Other companies makes their own choices independent of W-M single example, and the SC has helpled them by making subrogation more winnable.

Which do you think has been happening more frequently and will undoubtedly continue to pick up steam? winning subgrotions or wal-marting a won subrogation?

[SPARKY]

Who do you think owns the insurance regulators in all 50 states?

:stirpot:

[boutons_]

'the insurance regulators"

did you notice that Paulsen's plan pretty much kills state insurance regulators in favor of fed?

Repugs are for states' rights? for small govt? GMAFB

[SPARKY]

Well, at least that would make it more affordable for Wal-Mart, who now faces a deluge of brain-damaged associates with sons killed in Iraq milking it dry, to buy its influence.

[Wild Cobra]

It was Wal-mart's choice, not a legal decision and precedent.

Yes and No. It was Wal-Mart's choice to let them keep the money. The precedent was winning the case that allowed Wal-Mart to make it their choice. It would be a bad precedent if Wal-Mart lost the case. Then it would not be their choice, or the next corporation in a similar situation.

[SPARKY]

Yes and No. It was Wal-Mart's choice to let them keep the money. The precedent was winning the case that allowed Wal-Mart to make it their choice. It would be a bad precedent if Wal-Mart lost the case. Then it would not be their choice, or the next corporation in a similar situation.


So then, what's the problem now? It would seem that both sides got what they wanted.

[boutons_]

"Yes and No."

What robotic bullshit sping. It was a stand-alone YES,
there was no mitigating, compromising NO about it.

There is no slippery slope,
American capitalism and corps are not crashing down, no legal precedent other than wal-mart won its subrogation case.

There IS a lot of fear mongering and slinging of red herrings.

Wal-mart decision to cave may be an example for other corps, but I bet against that. Corps don't yield profits and power and "rights" to be nice guys and good citizens.

[Wild Cobra]

"Yes and No."

What robotic bullshit sping. It was a stand-alone YES,
there was no mitigating, compromising NO about it.

Come on, it was not a single question or statement.


It was Wal-mart's choice,
Yes, it was Wal-Mart's choice. You are correct.


not a legal decision and precedent.
I say no to this statement as in you are incorrect... It was a legal precedent. You say it wasn't a legal precedent, I say it was.

[boutons_]

wal-mart's caving is not a legal precedent. It is an example of how when the press exposes certain corp behaviors, the corps will abandon a behavior. The corps almost never do this. Wal-mart clearly thought it was to their advantage, removing ill will, which has monetary value behond $400K.

Wal-mart's win in court is a legal precedent surely to be noted by judges and corps.

[RandomGuy]

'the insurance regulators"

did you notice that Paulsen's plan pretty much kills state insurance regulators in favor of fed?

Repugs are for states' rights? for small govt? GMAFB


Interesting. Link? I could find it, but I was hoping to see what you read specifically. (curious)

((BEGIN EDIT))

Nevermind, I found it.

[SAGambler]

You and Wild Cobra's assertion that this will lead to some apocalyptic slippery slope for corporations everywhere is a paranoid delusion. A "special case" is exactly what this is, and Wal-Mart's decision not to pursue the money is predicated on the special circumstances of this case and won't affect their policies going forward. Your hypothetical 12 annual automobile accidents will be handled exactly like all the other automobile accidents in Wal-marts history: on a case by case basis, because they all don't involve life altering brain damage, 3rd party settlements or media attention.

And I'm still waiting for Wild Cobra to explain the "scam" here. Spending the rest of your life as a vegetable in a nursing home sounds like a pretty shitty scam to me.

I'm not sure that Wild Cobra ever stated this was a scam. Certainly it wasn't in any sense a "scam".

But what I'm trying to get across here, I guess, is that there is no way that Wal-Mart should be the ones getting the "bad guy" tag. All they were doing, is what was legal. Going by the contract. That, and that alone, is why every court has found in Wal-Marts favor.

Here is another question. Why didn't they just sue the trucking company strictly for either pain and suffering or loss of companionship or something other than recouping medical costs? Seems if they would have done that, Wal-Mart would never have tried to recoup the money, which by the way, goes back into the health fund for future victims, and not in their P & L statement.

The only reason is see for them being the "bad guys here", is like Keith Oberman put it. "Wal-Mart made 11 billion dollars last year, and they certainly don't need the money as bad as the woman does".

It's basically who makes the most money. They are always the bad guy.

[SPARKY]

The Shanks did sue for that. They settled so they'd be guaranteed to get something.

Wal-Mart was suing a brain damaged woman who lost a son in Iraq for the scant settlement which is needed to pay for full-time care for the rest of her life. Just because it was legal doesn't make it any less unseemly. Rinse. Repeat.

[smeagol]

I'm not sure that Wild Cobra ever stated this was a scam. Certainly it wasn't in any sense a "scam".

But what I'm trying to get across here, I guess, is that there is no way that Wal-Mart should be the ones getting the "bad guy" tag. All they were doing, is what was legal. Going by the contract. That, and that alone, is why every court has found in Wal-Marts favor.

Here is another question. Why didn't they just sue the trucking company strictly for either pain and suffering or loss of companionship or something other than recouping medical costs? Seems if they would have done that, Wal-Mart would never have tried to recoup the money, which by the way, goes back into the health fund for future victims, and not in their P & L statement.

The only reason is see for them being the "bad guys here", is like Keith Oberman put it. "Wal-Mart made 11 billion dollars last year, and they certainly don't need the money as bad as the woman does".

It's basically who makes the most money. They are always the bad guy.

That is why you need a little socialism in your brand of capitalism

[xrayzebra]

That is why you need a little socialism in your brand of capitalism

Oh, I don't think so. We have too much government
interference now. Why are you blaming Wal-Mart for
something that the woman's lawyer and family did, like
settle out of court, for what appears to be something the
woman was at fault to begin with. I mean after all
Wal-Mart has said she can keep the money as well as
what their insurance paid out to her. She is not without
means, she has SOC, possibly disability insurance and
maybe even workmans comp. We have no idea what
she has coming in. For certain she does have SOC.

[SPARKY]

That is why you need a little socialism in your brand of capitalism

Well, we do have a smidgen of that. Of course, the socialism that benefits the capitalists is not referred to as socialism. It's only when individuals receive something from the government that it is socialism, pinko communism, and un-American.

[SAGambler]

Well, we do have a smidgen of that. Of course, the socialism that benefits the capitalists is not referred to as socialism. It's only when individuals receive something from the government that it is socialism, pinko communism, and un-American.


And this has exactly what to do with the subject at hand?

[SPARKY]

Plenty.