Why Walmart?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Karstan, Mar 26, 2008.

  1. Karstan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Location:
    Everywhere
    #1
  2. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #2
    She should be thankful that her medical expenses were covered in the first place. Also, why is this Wal-Mart's fault. Why not ask her lawyer why he took so much of the money in the first place.

    Wal-Mart's Health Insurance Company has an obligation to treat this women the same as everyone else. If not then everyone's rates go up. This woman didn't lose any money she had in the first place.

    This woman has no problem when Wal-Mart pays $470,000 of her legal bills but then complains after she wins money and Wal-Mart's policy gets it back.

    jon
     
  3. EarthDawn macrumors 6502a

    EarthDawn

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Location:
    Long-eye Land, NY
    #3
    considering there bussiness ethics I am not surprised they have a loophole to burn those who bought the insurance ,,,,,

    just another example of how the better lawyer can railroad those who cant afford one ,, there is no justice in this case and it is very very sad... and whats worse is it will fall to the side of the road and in a week no one will remember or be reading about it anymore... and she and her family will continue on suffering for the rest of her days....
     
  4. EarthDawn macrumors 6502a

    EarthDawn

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Location:
    Long-eye Land, NY
    #4
    the money she got was not for her to use like she won the lottery it was for future medical care that she will need for the rest of her life... I dont think Walmart is going to pay her Medical bills forever..

    bottom line is yes... its her fault for not reading the crap policy WalMart was selling her... see they knew way in advance that they had a policy that protected them way better then those they were selling it to ... makes them smart for sure... and as usual bilks the middle class out of there hard earned dollar and left to suffer.

    Reminds me of the Junk Bonds of the 80's .....
     
  5. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #5
    Give me a break, legal loophole? This type of clause is in most if not all health insurance claims.

    Wal-Mart's Insurance paid for her accident which in no way was Wal-Mart's fault or related to Wal-Mart. The woman sues, gets $1 million dollars, pays taxes and her lawyer keeps a good percentage and then Wal-Mart recoups the cost.

    Simple as that and nothing shady about it. Like I said earlier, this money is fortunate these expenses were paid for in the first place. She needs to complain to her lawyer if she wants some money back.

    jon
     
  6. Karstan thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Location:
    Everywhere
    #6
    Yes, I get what you are saying. I am not arguing the fact that Walmart has every right to go after the money seeing as it was in the contract. What I am so crushed about is there is no sympathy now and days for our fellow humans. It seems to me that Walmart would care more about getting a mere $200,000 (I believe that is the settlement amount) than someone's future. Is this lady going to be the next homeless person on the street? This issue is bigger than this one incident. I am now left hoping that a democrat takes office soon, because as far as I am concerned America is failing it's people.
     
  7. Everythingisnt macrumors 6502a

    Everythingisnt

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #7
    She should have read the fine print..

    I don't think that that rule is bad or immoral, though I do think that Wal Mart could have been a bit more sympathetic towards her in their decision to take back the money..
     
  8. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #8
    So how come you're not complaining the lawyer didn't do his/her job for minimum wage to help this woman?
     
  9. iJon macrumors 604

    iJon

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    #9
    What happens when the next person sues Wal-Mart for letting that women keep her money and not letting the other person. It's starts a large gray area.

    Wal-Mart took back 40% of her money and still didn't cover their end. There is another 60% out there that was taken as well. That would be the taxes and the lawyer. Since we know we can't recoup the taxes then that leaves the lawyer. I don't see any fingers being pointed there.

    jon
     
  10. Karstan thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Location:
    Everywhere
    #10
    Well, you got me there. I would also like to go on record that the lawyer also took major advantage of the family. It is Walmart though that has taken on this family to re-coup money that they don't really need.
     
  11. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #11
    You don't become a $90bn company by giving checks to those who deserve them most.

    By the harshest logic, this woman should give all the money she does have to those in life-threatening situations, such as the starving. The world doesn't work like that, no matter if it should, nor if one of the parties involved is incredibly rich.
     
  12. Everythingisnt macrumors 6502a

    Everythingisnt

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #12
    Lawyers?

    Ugh. Lets not even go into class-action lawsuits...
     

Share This Page