So this is why they call Wal-Mart evil . . .

[darylscook]

Wow, I just read the story! I am not here to defend wal-mart. We shop at Kroger and Freds. I hate walmart, but we do shop there some. But, where is the outrage at her lawyers!!!! sorry dolfan, but that is where the Greed and/or Incompetence is located.

If I am in an accident and my health Insurance pays, I KNOW that If I get a settlement, my health insurance/auto insurance will have to be repaid. Her lawyers didn't know that Wal-mart would want their money back if an award was given . Why should walmart pay when it was the trucking companies fault. Her lawyers got more money than her. And they knew (or should have known) that Walmart was going to expect to be reimbursed.

Should Wal-mart forgo it's reimbursement, no. Should they set up a trust afterwards, probably. But, they didn't create the crash, they simply did what they said they would do; pay up front for her care and if she receives a settlement then get their money back. Her lawyers got the family to accept a settlement that wouln't even full pay back the medical bills and their fees; They are the evil ones. And, for of 1/2 mil, if they couldn't settle for more, they they should have worked things out with Walmart b4 the settlement!!!

my $.02 duly deposited -- flame away
Pastor Daryl

[MacUser]

my $.02 duly deposited -- flame away
Pastor Daryl

Good Chuckle Thanks.

[forestwalker]

Hillsboro was a wonderful place to live, full of rustic shops and neat places. Places that would have been driven out if Wal-Mart would have been allowed in. Incredibly, outcry from the community and a resounding NO vote by the Beaverton city council prevented Wal-Qaeda from touching within 20 miles of Beaverton-Hillsboro.

.

ALLOWED in? What right does the government have to say which businesses are ALLOWED in? Where do we live, the Soviet Union?

Why not let the free market determine whether WalMart succeeds or fails in that community. If you people like your "rustic shops" so darn much, then people would have forsaken Walmart, and it would fail and close down.

But what would have happened, as your post acknowledges, if Walmart would have been "allowed" in, is that people would have fled from those precious "rustic shops" like rats from a sinking ship. Why? BECAUSE WALMART HAS BETTER VALUES.

Had freedom would have been allowed to reign, people would have at least had a choice. As it is now, they are forced to pay artificially inflated prices because the almighty government is keeping out competition.

That ain't America. That's socialism.

No. It's what America was before we were all tricked into being individualist libertarians. The community is protecting itself. It has the right to do so (you believe in state's rights but not community rights?).

[forestwalker]

Call me crazy, but some of you have been swilling the anti-success, anti-capitalism, neo-socialist, the-big-bad-WalMart-is-evil Koolaid.

Has everyone lost their ability to apply critical thinking and understand that there are two sides to every story? Here's an academic rebuttal.

Uh, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute is not an academic organization. It's a propaganda platform for so-called Austrian Economics, a branch of the field so despicable that even moderate Libertarians are generally embarrassed by its proponents.

[DaJudge]

[
No. It's what America was before we were all tricked into being individualist libertarians. The community is protecting itself. It has the right to do so (you believe in state's rights but not community rights?).

My friend, George Washington, Tom Jefferson, and Ben Franklin were "individualist libertarians". The government that they set up was to protect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS, not "community freedoms" (whatever the heck that is.) If you want to put the government"s/community's rights above individual freedom, move to Cuba or Venezuela, because you are a Marxist.

[Pastor Bill]

OK, let's look at this honestly.

A person is injured, insurance pays their medical bills.

They sue the person liable for the injury, that person is forced to pay for the medical bills.

No one is paying the bills twice, so who should get that money? if she had no insurance, this money would go to the bills, because her insurance covered it, either they are reimbursed, or the person responsible for the accident shouldn't have been asked to pay them.

Now other money for pain & suffering, lost wages, etc. Yes that should be hers, but if you look at it objectively, I can understand it, and actually it would seem irresponsible of the insurance company NOT to recoup that money, knowing that the cost of those bills (if not reimbursed) would come from the premiums of those currently insured.

We can feel sorry for the woman, we can want to see her receive MORE for pain & suffering, etc. But if this was awarded to cover medical bills, then it wasn't hers in the first place.

[RamboPreacher]

...if you look at it objectively, I can understand it, and actually it would seem irresponsible of the insurance company NOT to recoup that money, knowing that the cost of those bills (if not reimbursed) would come from the premiums of those currently insured....

unfortunately many people can't see it objectively; not through the sad-story as it was presented.

[dolfan]

Here's something they did that was sneaky and wrong and they stopped doing it.

Wal-Mart, without employee permission, took employee social security numbers and information and purchased life insurance on employees ranging from $10K to over $100K in death benefits, named itself as beneficiary, and collected when the employee died. Now folks, that's wrong, I don't care how you slice it. They kept the policies up even after employees were terminated, so don't compare it to so-called "key man" policies that businesses often use as safety nets in case their go-to guys die. They did this for almost 10 years from 1994 until about 2003 or so, and with neither the knowledge or permission of the employees' whose lives they were betting against. They made a ton of money from it.

[Pastor Gary]

Uh, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute is not an academic organization. It's a propaganda platform for so-called Austrian Economics, a branch of the field so despicable that even moderate Libertarians are generally embarrassed by its proponents.

I didn't say the institute was academic, I said the rebuttal was academic, as opposed to working the emotions of the readers. I apologize for the choice of words.

How about dealing with the content of the article, if you an get past the logo?

[Pastor Gary]

Here's something they did that was sneaky and wrong and they stopped doing it.

Please explain, in legal terms, how the individual being insured was harmed by WalMart's actions, for those of us who a little clueless.

[forestwalker]

Uh, the Ludwig Von Mises Institute is not an academic organization. It's a propaganda platform for so-called Austrian Economics, a branch of the field so despicable that even moderate Libertarians are generally embarrassed by its proponents.

I didn't say the institute was academic, I said the rebuttal was academic, as opposed to working the emotions of the readers. I apologize for the choice of words.

How about dealing with the content of the article, if you an get past the logo?

The article (though written by an academic) is no more academic than is von Mises in general. There's no actual reasoning behind his argument, only the assertion of Libertarian philosophical assumptions (assumptions I'm sure you, as a Christian, would find anathema) in (dishonest) language designed to stir the emotions of the reader. For example:

"...[Walmart's critics have] openly stated that Third World peoples should simply be supported by American aid, and that the West should do all it can to make sure that the economies of these poor nations do not grow, all in the name of environmentalism. In other words, none of us are poor enough to satisfy the anti-Wal-Mart activists whose real goal is to eviscerate our own standards of living and 'turn back the clock' to an era when life expectancy was lower and people generally were more deprived."

You can call that a good or bad argument (it's quite bad ) but you can't call it academic.

[Pastor Gary]

So if WalMart is the axis of economic evil, and the despoiler of righteousness, let's carry it to the logical extreme:

• Close down the evil enterprise.
• Put 1.5 million workers out of their slavery to the blood-sucking capitalists.
• Shut down all those Chinese manufacturing facilities supplying the good that stock the evil shelves of WalMart -- I am sure the workers in those factories will be fine and secure other means of income once they are unshackled from imprisonment at the work-benches.
• Americans won't mind paying more for goods, since they will leave the stores with less money, but they will have that nice, warm feeling of victory for the proletariat over the evil profiteers.
• All those huge empty stores can be turned into homeless shelters for the newly unemployed WalMart workers.

[forestwalker]

That sounds like a bad idea.

[Susie Hamilton]

OK, let's look at this honestly.

A person is injured, insurance pays their medical bills.

They sue the person liable for the injury, that person is forced to pay for the medical bills.

No one is paying the bills twice, so who should get that money? if she had no insurance, this money would go to the bills, because her insurance covered it, either they are reimbursed, or the person responsible for the accident shouldn't have been asked to pay them.

Now other money for pain & suffering, lost wages, etc. Yes that should be hers, but if you look at it objectively, I can understand it, and actually it would seem irresponsible of the insurance company NOT to recoup that money, knowing that the cost of those bills (if not reimbursed) would come from the premiums of those currently insured.

We can feel sorry for the woman, we can want to see her receive MORE for pain & suffering, etc. But if this was awarded to cover medical bills, then it wasn't hers in the first place.

About 14 years ago I was attacked by a dog at work. I was injured altho not bitten. Post office said I had to sue the owner of the dog. From the settlement, Worker's Comp was reimbursed for the medical bills I incurred and I received what was left over.

[pastorables]

That being the case, I'm sure you'll be putting your local Walmart out of business any day now.

Sigh. You still don't get it. I'm sure that all the dollar stores in town and myself together couldn't do that, but it doesn't change that people are ultimately believing a lie if they believe that Wal-Mart has the best prices on everything. It's a facade.

I will continue to buy specific items there: mainly music, videos, games, etc... I even bought my last television there. Admittedly, they are very competitive on certain items, but where they make their real money is on bulk sales of everyday items. It's on these everyday items that they aren't always cheaper, yet due to convenience of everything under one roof ( a great business concept, btw ), they profit tremendously.

pa