www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Walmart strtikes again

Imagine the fall out if they did not follow the contract. Nevertheless, the suggestion by one person that they receive the money and give that amount as a donation to a worthy cause, namely the Shanks, would seem to get around the problem.

CDL

Walmart has a right to stick with the contract. If they violate the contract by giving away the money here they set a precedent. Pretty soon there is no money left to pay regular health insurance claims. Then no one has health insurance. I feel for the people but they are in the wrong in asking Walmart to treat them differently then anyone else. They probably should have appealed to one of the many Walmart charities that help people.

Yes, Walmart has a right to stick with the contract language. However, I think the bigger issue is: is there a moral issue not only with this specific case but the clause in the contract as a whole...I think we are looking at "letter of the law" instead of "spirit of the law"...this is money that is being utilized for her on-going long term care needs...it's not profiting off what the insurance company had already paid for (which is what these clauses are inserted for)...

This case clearly illustrates the difference between our current legal concept of justice as "fairness," and the biblical understanding of justice. Walmart has a grave moral obligation before God to let this family keep the money that is needed. Indeed, the view that contractual laws must be literally followed without exception is a total falsification of justice. Funny, I thought that one of the great strengths of private enterprise was its flexibility? Not having to mechanically follow the abstract rules of faceless government bureaucrats?

God's mercy and justice toward the poor should always trump procedural notions of justice. At least, that's what the Bible teaches.

Joe

As an attorney, I'm utterly underwhelmed by the article--save for the attorney's surprise.

I'm not sure that I have *ever* encountered a medical policy that doesn't provide for this subrogation. We *know* that health insurance payment is secondary to that of the tortfeasor. That's just the way that the policies are.

For some reason or another, this attorney settled the claim for an amount in which his fees and the medical insurance were more than the amount of settlement. Sometimes, this is necessary. When I've encountered it, generally attorneys, unpaid providers, and insurance companies work together to reduce their claims so that the victim receives a payment. This is done *before* settling, as by settling, the insurer's rights and options get curtailed.

The fault here is with her attorney, not Walmart, regardless of the size of the latter.

hawk, esq

Just because one has a right to do something, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean is it right, just, or decent.

Insurance pricing is based on what will be paid out. If more will be paid out, the premium will be higher. If particular things don't pay, the premium is lower than if they did.

Unjust would be issuing policies and then paying things not covered for selected people--unjust to both the other people buying the insurance and to the shareholders.

Generally speaking, insurance companies don't make a profit from the premiums. Instead, they make a profit by investing the premiums until its time to pay claims.

In a system based on everybody paying in a few hundred so that they have a few hundred thousand, up to a specified amount, available if something happens, immoral would be paying over that amount at the expense of the others.

hawk

Dochawk is absolutely correct. Moreover, when dealing with stories such as this, people would be well advised to use their heads as well as their hearts, and consider the unintended consequences of reacting with rank emotionalism. Moreover, people should always read the fine print.

I think Wal-Mart should get their money back. It is the right, fair, and just thing to happen. It would also be the right thing for Wal-Mart to help this woman out and put, say half a million dollars into a trust fund for her, if they choose to do so, and not for this reason: "They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad,". If that is to be our guide then we should tell them that they have to hire someone to find the most needy people and to award someone a half a million dollars everyday.

Exactly.

Were I the management, I'd offer to match the first however-many dollars other employees contributed.

Doing it out of the insurance breaks the system, and takes away the ability of others, at Walmart and elsewhere, to buy insurance in the first place.

Matching employee support for another from corporate funds helps morale and loyalty, and is a justifiable use of the shareholder's money.

hawk