E-Mail Post To A Friend
Email a copy of 'Wal-Mart Reverses Itself and Lets Disabled Woman Keep Her Money' to a friend
Loading ...
42 comments to "Wal-Mart Reverses Itself and Lets Disabled Woman Keep Her Money"
-
caitlin13
April 2nd, 2008 at
5:37 am
Thank god. I can’t believe it took them this long. Well, I can’t believe they did it in the first place. I even had it on my to-do list to look up a way to donate to her (still do, and still will).
-
luke
April 2nd, 2008 at
6:27 am
I can’t believe they gave in!
-
luke
April 2nd, 2008 at
7:07 am
Anybody notice that you can only post comments using a none IE browser today?
-
Sue Dunham
April 2nd, 2008 at
7:16 am
Hooray for the internet: a power for truth, justice, etc.
It’s not just youtube and yahoo.
(By the way I like your watermark in the comment box.) -
xander
April 2nd, 2008 at
7:16 am
Does this make Wal-Mart look any better to those of you who oppose it?
Your thoughts?
-
Ty
April 2nd, 2008 at
7:55 am
why would they look better? because they gave in for fear of gaining a bad rap?
-
Wincey
April 2nd, 2008 at
8:09 am
This story had also run on Countdown for several nights, wherein Keith Olbermann said he would name Wal-Mart one of the “Worst People in the World” every night on his show until Wal-Mart did the right thing. He also called on his viewers to write & call TV stations and newspapers to ask them to cover the story. So maybe it’s partly the internets and partly the TVs, but anyway — good work, everyone.
-
Meursault
April 2nd, 2008 at
8:26 am
I thought the Waltons were supposed to be Christians. But this company is borderline evil.
-
Parker
April 2nd, 2008 at
8:27 am
I still won’t be shopping at WalMart after this little fiasco.
-
Jimmy Tide
April 2nd, 2008 at
8:42 am
Do you research people! WalMart should be trying to get their money! The family took money from both insurance and WalMart! They double dipped!
-
Ed Hands
April 2nd, 2008 at
9:01 am
I am certainly not a “fan boy” of Wal-mart…in fact, I hate much of what they do. From their destruction of small local companies, to their failure to police their own parking lots to the outrageous quantities of imports from China.
That said, it is easy to become jaded about the bad they do that we fail to see the good (however little there is…oops…there I go again) they have done and continue to do.
Here is an article I ran across. A bitter pill for me to swallow, but reminds me to try to keep an open mind about Wally World.
-
Ed Hands
April 2nd, 2008 at
9:05 am
@ Parker:
Agreed. I still will not shop there, but perhaps a little less venom from me.
Just a little.
-
Tim
April 2nd, 2008 at
9:14 am
I thought they were just doing the right thing. They were upholding their own policy, not trying to take advantage of some disabled person…
-
Thespian24601
April 2nd, 2008 at
9:22 am
Are you serious? I mean, yes, she deserves compensation, but they originally said they weren’t going to pay because she was receiving pay twice, right? Yes, Wal-Mart may seem evil to you people, but it doesn’t mean that people should unlawfully be able to take money from them.
-
luke
April 2nd, 2008 at
9:22 am
Always low standards, always
-
probinu
April 2nd, 2008 at
9:23 am
I think the problem here was that to Wal-Mart it was just paper, some one in some office saw that they could recoup some money. Once the problem was humanized they give in and also (we will see if they follow through( offer additional help.
-
presto1775
April 2nd, 2008 at
9:41 am
Technically, Wal-Mart was just following its own policy before, and now it is going above and beyond what is required. I think they should be commended, they certainly aren’t required to do this and I doubt they would have lost much business if they hadn’t. People will always find reasons like thios story to hate them when they really hate the free market and capitalism that they represent.
-
fsmarch
April 2nd, 2008 at
9:42 am
Wal-Mart is just trying to save face with the public. In view of their abyssmal track record, they have a long way to go.
-
LoveZombie
April 2nd, 2008 at
9:59 am
I am glad they gave it to her. I know their contract said that they didn’t have to.. But I am glad that they did!
-
Tom
April 2nd, 2008 at
10:23 am
The problem with ALL corporations, not just Walmart, is that they are set up to be sociopathic. If they don’t seek the maximum available profit at any expense, then they become vulnerable to lawsuits from their shareholders.
This wasn’t always the case. Before the 1840’s, corporations were issued limited articles of corporation and forced to break up after a set amount of time. One of the issues addressed in each corporation’s initial filings was how it would benefit society. If there was no societal benefit, they wouldn’t be allowed to incorporate.
Of course, one the Industrial Revolution hit the States, a few powerful people were able to change the laws, eventually granting corporations the same rights as any citizen (except for the vote). It’s pretty awful.
I think if we went back to the old method, we wouldn’t have so many damned corporate scandals. People would get together, make some money, do some good, then part ways. No more perpetual ownership of ideas by single organizations, etc.
-
bean
April 2nd, 2008 at
11:01 am
Hooray! It’s officially not illegal to commit insurance fraud and breach of contract against a major corporation! We’re all gonna be millionaires!
-
mixamillion
April 2nd, 2008 at
11:56 am
This is none other than people making other people feel sorry for you to get what you want. Charity. Walmart is going to donate to charity that’s it. Now instead of struggling a little and worrying about your kid going to college you can upgrade that car quit your job and your kid doesn’t have to pay a cent for college or work. Maybe he’ll go to law school.
-
Nora
April 2nd, 2008 at
12:21 pm
I really dislike what Wal-mart does to small towns. I grew up in a small town (pop 12,000)that had a thriving booming touristy downtown area when I was young. It was a great place to get out and go shopping and just enjoy the day.
Then Wal-mart came.
Now the downtown area is filled with insurance providers, loan agencies etc (whoever will pay the rent). All the wonderful neat shops are gone now. Why bother going to the local hardware store for nails and a free bag of popcorn, when you can just pick them up with the rest of your shopping at Wal-mart? Why buy locally crafted gifts, when you can shop for cheap clothes and gifts at walmart? Why bother going to the toy store when walmart sells cheaper toys from china? Bakeries, sweet shops, gift stores, all gone now. And (not so) coincidentally the majority of them “closed” after Wal-mart came in.
Now, the whole town is so dependant on wal-mart we couldn’t boycot or close it down if we wanted to.
The other grocery store couldn’t compete and closed down years ago. Where would we get groceries? How would we get hardware/household goods? Its the only game in town. It squashed everything and created a local monopoly.Wal-mart is evil, if you hear of one going into your town, do everything you can think of to stop it. Because once its there… it takes over.
-
Cindy
April 2nd, 2008 at
12:23 pm
Good for Shank, bad for Wal-Mart. There’s going to be so many more suits pop up because of this.
-
Christophe
April 2nd, 2008 at
12:31 pm
Wal-Mart is getting soft. Now, I’ve seen everything.
-
Xerloq
April 2nd, 2008 at
1:03 pm
Didn’t she sue the trucker for the expenses Wal-Mart was covering? Sounds like she got paid twice to me.
-
hutt09
April 2nd, 2008 at
1:31 pm
What a joke. Now she will not qualify for Medicaid, and the doctors will take all her money. What a country.
-
Steohawk
April 2nd, 2008 at
2:05 pm
I’m glad Wal-Mart made the right decision, but I seriously doubt that they were motivated by compassion.
That said, I’m astonished at some of the comments in favor of Wal-Mart’s original decision. Even if the contract was valid under libertarian ethical principles, we shouldn’t confuse natural rights with moral rightness.
-
ihateallex
April 2nd, 2008 at
2:29 pm
Good for Walmart, they actually did the right thing.
-
rurumon
April 2nd, 2008 at
2:32 pm
Moral rightness? are you kidding me?
Did any of you people actually do your research or generically beat the “ALL CORPORATION ARE TEH EVIL” drum?This family was lent money to cover her medical expenses by WalMart until such time as she was able to successfully sue for damages and recover the money at a later date. When she did sue successfully, WalMart asked for their money back. Otherwise, she would be compensated twice.
Stop being such liberal bandwagoners and read the fine print here, the woman was lent money…now she had to pay it back. It doesn’t matter what kind of company WalMart is, or how much money they make…she is stealing if she doesn’t return it.
I understand her situation is awful, but the moral outrage here is that she is somehow obligated to as much money as she can obtain, regardless of the legality.
-
CheeseDuck
April 2nd, 2008 at
2:34 pm
Huh. Wal-Mart FINALLY did some good.
-
tinfoil
April 2nd, 2008 at
2:47 pm
I’m not sure what to think on this one. First, her lawyer needs to be kicked back to school at the very least. Suing for medical bills was a very bad decision.
What Walmart did may be nefarious, dastardly, just plain bad, but when an insurance company can get some funds back, it can help to keep rates lower. That $400,000+ is going to be spread out amongst all Walmart employees, be sure of that. (Assuming Walmart is self insured?)
She should have sued for pain, suffering, diminished earning capacity. If her lawyer was a proper greedy lawyer, he would have had her family members sue as well.
What walmart did may have been morally wrong, but her double dipping on her medical bills isn’t exactly saintly either.
-
su.wei
April 2nd, 2008 at
2:47 pm
wow. walmart has a heart (?) though i think the decision was brought on by a fear of loosing customers. i was boycotting them after i heard about this story.
-
Tim
April 2nd, 2008 at
3:17 pm
I think these people are shmucks for using the press to pressure Wal Mart instead of dealing with Wal Mart without external influence.
-
Oomi
April 2nd, 2008 at
4:06 pm
Wow, I am genuinely shocked.
-
ted
April 2nd, 2008 at
6:22 pm
Wow is right.
It’s nice that Wal-Mart did it, even though they had every right not to. So what if it was only to save face?
It’s not a case of legality, morality, or ethics. In fact, the Shanks seem to be the ones working the system. For example, he divorced his wife so she could get more money out of Medicaid. That’s not very honest or fair to others who are not cheating the system.
Now the cost of benefits and access to those benefits for other Wal-Mart employees will increase. Is that “right”?
-
Thomas
April 2nd, 2008 at
8:29 pm
incredible. apparently it hurt their sales enough to do something.
@Meursault: no borderline about it. Wal-mart is evil all the way through.
-
E.T.Cook
April 2nd, 2008 at
11:04 pm
You guys are honestly blubbering idiots.
All Wal-Mart wanted to do was recoup the money that they rightfully were owed. She collected on bills that Wal-Mart already paid for her, why would she get to keep the money?
Sometimes I wonder how bleeding hearts get so myopic, and don’t have a bit of logical sense in their body. It’s actually amazing you guys can breath.
-
Aramax
April 3rd, 2008 at
4:51 am
E.T.Cook, actually it was money Wal-Mart gaved to that woman to pay her medical bill because she was in an accident but Wal-Mart now want that money back because she won a lawsuit against the truck company involved in her accident.
I dont know if that accident happened while she was at work or not but apparently Wal-Mart payed for her medical expense… it’s just a cheap shot to come and claim that money after she won a lawsuit for the damage that was done to her.
The way I see it, it’s like Wal-Mart wasted some money so that she live long enough to make money out of a lawsuit and then drain all that money back.
I can almost hear “Thank you, come again.” from some Wal-Mart representative.
-
probinu
April 3rd, 2008 at
12:59 pm
or, it was a policy that she signed. They did not see she won the money and then decide to change the policy. she should not be allowed to double dip the system.
All the bleeding hearts need to look at logic;
Say you get in a car accident that was not your fault. You can not collect on the damages because the at fault driver is not insured or it was a hit and run. your insurance company pays the costs for you to get better and fixes your car. A year later the at fault party comes back and pays you all the damages. is that your money or the car insurance company that in good faith fronted those costs?
-
ted
April 3rd, 2008 at
4:21 pm
Another good example would be if your car is stolen. The insurance company pays for you to get a new car, but the cops eventually find your car. That’s the insurance company’s car, now. They paid for it. You don’t get the money and the old car back.
-
Pol x
April 5th, 2008 at
10:51 am
Does anyone remember the scene from the Looney Tunes cartoons, where Granny walks in on Sylvester about to eat tweety?
He carefully removes the bird from his mouth, pats down the birds feathers, smooths him down and pops him back on his perch, all the while grinning endearingly at granny.
When i heard that WalMart had backed down I got that image so vividly.
you know that as soon as the internet focus drifts away from this poor woman, Sylvester will be up on a precariously stacked tower of chairs desperately trying to scoff that pain in the arse little bird once more.
PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT
-
Your purchase helps support the blog - Thank you!
