login | register
09 Feb 2010 [15:05 UTC]

Working Life

Published by Labor Research Association

Wal-Mart Really Is Scum

by Jonathan Tasini
Tuesday 20 of November, 2007
Posted to Front Page Posts
    I'm running to the WGA picket line here and have a whole bunch of things on my mind to write about but this will do for now, from today's Wall Street Journal:
A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.

Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.

"I don't understand why they need to do this," says Mr. Shank on a recent visit to the nursing home, between shifts as a maintenance worker and running a tanning salon. "This girl needs the money more than they do." Mrs. Shank, who needs help with eating and other basic tasks, spends more time alone since Mr. Shank had to let her private caregiver go. At some point, he says, she may have to be moved from a private to a semi-private room in the nursing home where she lives.

    Can Wal-Mart be anymore scummy?


Comments

Huh?

by Kevin F Droste, Tuesday 20 of November, 2007 [19:31:25 UTC]
I am a little lost on this report.  What does the $470,000 figure Wal-mart sued for represent?  I have never had a healthcare company pay for any treatment on my behalf, outside of what my plan covered.  Normally, I get a rejection notice of the claim filed by the doctor/hospital from my healthcare provider.  They only pay for the services covered.  Why did the Wal-mart plan pay out of pocket for this woman, and then recoup the money from her?  Did she in some way get them to pay for treatment she was not entitled to under her plan through fraudulent or other deceptive means?  Jonathan, how about some more data on what really went on here?

Not the best example of Wal-Mart's scumminess

by Union1, Tuesday 20 of November, 2007 [21:58:17 UTC]
Although I completely agree that Wal-Mart is scummy and is truly a terrible employer, this is not the best example of its scumminess.  Most insurance contracts include something called a subrogation agreement.  Under these agreements, the insurer is entitled to recoup what it spent on healthcare costs for the person it insures if that person recovers money from the person who caused the insured's injury. 
Rather than having a third-party like United Healthcare or another big insurance company provide health insurance to its employees, I think Wal-Mart self-insures.  As Mrs. Shank's insurer, Wal-Mart likely spent $470,000 for Mrs. Shank's healthcare following her accident.  Once Mrs. Shank recovered from the person who hurt her, the subrogation clause in the insurance contract kicks in, entitling Wal-Mart to reimbursement for the money it spent on Mrs. Shank's healthcare.
This same problem arises under most insurance plans, not just Wal-Mart's.  These subrogation agreements are controversial because the insurer is already getting premiums from the insured person.  Now, in addition to the premium, the subrogation agreement allows an insurer to recovering all the money it spent on healthcare costs.  Under this senario, the insurer gets both the premiums and reimbursement for the money it spends on a person's healthcare.
So, although Wal-Mart is super-scummy, this is a systematic problem that relates to most, if not all, insurance policies. 

Re: Not the best example of Wal-Mart's scumminess

by Kevin F Droste, Tuesday 20 of November, 2007 [23:18:39 UTC]
Thanks for clarifying this issue for me. 

?

by gsor, Wednesday 21 of November, 2007 [23:34:39 UTC]
I understand that this is a widespread phenomenon, but for god's sake, they're taking away support money from a crippled woman. The legalism is irrelevant, whoever greenlighted this is still going to burn in hell for it.

Is anyone raising money for this woman? I know the story has gotten a lot of press, some online fundraising thing could help out quite a bit.
Tags: Wal-Mart

Become A Working Life Sustainer

Make A Contribution Today!

Your Draft Blog Posts

Last blog posts

Login

Name:
Password:
Don't have an Account? Creating one is easy!
Blog With Us »
Clicky Web Analytics