Wal-Mart Ends Persecution of Disabled Woman

[RamboPreacher]

God help me if I ever become so blinded by another ideology that I can't see injustice when it's clear in front of me.

what injustice????????????????please explain

the injustice that walmart has now set an apparent precedent of not doing what they were allowed by law to do, possibly because of the negative press? I hope this doesn't turn around to bite them.

[one love]

what injustice????????????????please explain

A disabled woman is robbed by her former employer of everything she had because they could legally do so. Her husband is forced to make the choice to divorice her so she can recieve more welfare benefits. And to top it off, her son is killed in Iraq which she unfortunately can not remember so she must be reminded every day that her son is dead. Yet it is insisted that Wal-Mart did no wrong! Don't we all face instances where we can legally do things but we don't for ethics sake? If you can't see this what is wrong with you?

they did make it right you posted that. You have missed the point entirely, you dont see that blaming walmart is not the correct thing to do. They did not injure her, they did not kill her son they just did as there policy says as well as many other policies and they still changed it that makes them pretty fair. But now everyone from a stumped toe is ging to want this action as well. It could have been done in a charitable way as to not break there policy, there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone here wanted here to get the money and posted they felt sorry for her and the family...you dont get it

[one love]

God help me if I ever become so blinded by another ideology that I can't see injustice when it's clear in front of me.

what injustice????????????????please explain

the injustice that walmart has now set an apparent precedent of not doing what they were allowed by law to do, possibly because of the negative press? I hope this doesn't turn around to bite them.

i wrote my post before yours but i agree.

[crispfin]

they did make it right you posted that. You have missed the point entirely, you dont see that blaming walmart is not the correct thing to do. They did not injure her, they did not kill her son they just did as there policy says as well as many other policies and they still changed it that makes them pretty fair. But now everyone from a stumped toe is ging to want this action as well. It could have been done in a charitable way as to not break there policy, there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone here wanted here to get the money and posted they felt sorry for her and the family...you dont get it

You seem to misunderstand. I didn't say Wal-Mart injured her or killed her son. Just because they had the legal right to sue for repayment does not mean they should have, contract or not. If the levite had come by and kicked the Samaritan in the groin but later paid his medical bills he would still have been a jerk. I can't give props to an entity who does wrong to the weakest possible victim and then applaud when they finally do right under pressure. And I don't buy the crap that this wrong should have been tolerated so others don't take advantage. Maybe it's 'cuz I don't share your ideology and never approached it from a business pov, but I would contend it is you who have missed the moral point.

[paul]

"My thanks go first and foremost to my lord and savior Jesus Christ for the strength to bear up under all this. Thanks also to the citizens of the United States - it wasn't me who made this happen, it was the outcry of the people, and if there's a lesson in this story it's that 'we the people' still means something."

Powerful statement from the husband......The principle that Jesus taught. " Lord, what is the greatest command ? "That you love God with all you heart mind and soul, and that you love you neighbor as yourself."

I cound not help but notice his respponse, First to our Lord Jesus Christ, then to others, the people. Wether Wal-Mart did it or not, this family certinally did.

[one love]

they did make it right you posted that. You have missed the point entirely, you dont see that blaming walmart is not the correct thing to do. They did not injure her, they did not kill her son they just did as there policy says as well as many other policies and they still changed it that makes them pretty fair. But now everyone from a stumped toe is ging to want this action as well. It could have been done in a charitable way as to not break there policy, there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone here wanted here to get the money and posted they felt sorry for her and the family...you dont get it

You seem to misunderstand. I didn't say Wal-Mart injured her or killed her son. Just because they had the legal right to sue for repayment does not mean they should have, contract or not. If the levite had come by and kicked the Samaritan in the groin but later paid his medical bills he would still have been a jerk. I can't give props to an entity who does wrong to the weakest possible victim and then applaud when they finally do right under pressure. And I don't buy the crap that this wrong should have been tolerated so others don't take advantage. Maybe it's 'cuz I don't share your ideology and never approached it from a business pov, but I would contend it is you who have missed the moral point.

you are so wrong!!!! I personally have and will contiune to help people personally. My point was i would rather seen it done on a charitbale donation becuase they followed there legal plan. You dont get it. I have a heart and was praying walmart would help out. Your entire post is incorrect im looking at it rationally

[Pastor Bill]

what injustice????????????????please explain

A disabled woman is robbed by her former employer of everything she had because they could legally do so. Her husband is forced to make the choice to divorice her so she can recieve more welfare benefits. And to top it off, her son is killed in Iraq which she unfortunately can not remember so she must be reminded every day that her son is dead. Yet it is insisted that Wal-Mart did no wrong! Don't we all face instances where we can legally do things but we don't for ethics sake? If you can't see this what is wrong with you?

Nope, that's not the facts at all.

A disabled woman is given a HUGE settlement for medical costs, pain and suffering, her INSURANCE COMPANY that has paid those medical costs expects reimbursement for those costs from the settlement (as this was both the court decision and the terms of her insurance) This reimbursment would still leave her with a large settlement (the pain and suffering portion)

Her husband considering making a decision to divorce her so she can draw welfare is a ridiculous manipulation of the welfare system

Her son's death has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS

Her situation is trajic, I feel for her personally, but if this had happened to someone with no insurance, and no connection with WalMart where do we expect this $470,000 everyone seems to feel she deserves to come from?

it would have went to medical bills, as the court ordered, instead she wants to let her insurance company foot the bill, and keep the medical reimbursement for herself on top of the rest of her settlement.

[one love]

what injustice????????????????please explain

A disabled woman is robbed by her former employer of everything she had because they could legally do so. Her husband is forced to make the choice to divorice her so she can recieve more welfare benefits. And to top it off, her son is killed in Iraq which she unfortunately can not remember so she must be reminded every day that her son is dead. Yet it is insisted that Wal-Mart did no wrong! Don't we all face instances where we can legally do things but we don't for ethics sake? If you can't see this what is wrong with you?

Nope, that's not the facts at all.

A disabled woman is given a HUGE settlement for medical costs, pain and suffering, her INSURANCE COMPANY that has paid those medical costs expects reimbursement for those costs from the settlement (as this was both the court decision and the terms of her insurance) This reimbursment would still leave her with a large settlement (the pain and suffering portion)

Her husband considering making a decision to divorce her so she can draw welfare is a ridiculous manipulation of the welfare system

Her son's death has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS

Her situation is trajic, I feel for her personally, but if this had happened to someone with no insurance, and no connection with WalMart where do we expect this $470,000 everyone seems to feel she deserves to come from?

it would have went to medical bills, as the court ordered, instead she wants to let her insurance company foot the bill, and keep the medical reimbursement for herself on top of the rest of her settlement.

stop it you evil doer seriously this is about as easy and accurate as it gets, as i said Pastorbill has made the new buisness team

[crispfin]

you are so wrong!!!! I personally have and will contiune to help people personally. My point was i would rather seen it done on a charitbale donation becuase they followed there legal plan. You dont get it. I have a heart and was praying walmart would help out. Your entire post is incorrect im looking at it rationally

We each see our positions as the rational choice. I sincerely apoligize if I insinuated you had no heart. I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from, as it seems you are me, but if I implied you were heartless or came across like that I apologize. I still believe Wal-Mart was commiting a wrong, but no more bruised foreheads. I'm happy she is not going to lose her trust fund and that Wal-Mart did the right thing.

[Pastor Bill]

I'm happy she is not going to lose her trust fund

I think that's the reason we aren't seeing each other's viewpoint.

She was not set up with a trust fund, she was given a settlement to cover medical expenses and pain & suffering. She may have accepted it as a structured settlement, so it's paid out a little at a time rather than all at once, but it's intended use (at least the PORTION of it that they were in court over) was to pay for those medical expenses.

The person responsible to pay her medical expenses should be the one who caused the accident, not WalMart/Insurance company, but instead they BOTH paid for it, and she kept the extra money. Glad she was blessed, but can't blame the insurance company for wanting to actually receive the money that the court awarded for that purpose.

[one love]

you are so wrong!!!! I personally have and will contiune to help people personally. My point was i would rather seen it done on a charitbale donation becuase they followed there legal plan. You dont get it. I have a heart and was praying walmart would help out. Your entire post is incorrect im looking at it rationally

We each see our positions as the rational choice. I sincerely apoligize if I insinuated you had no heart. I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from, as it seems you are me, but if I implied you were heartless or came across like that I apologize. I still believe Wal-Mart was commiting a wrong, but no more bruised foreheads. I'm happy she is not going to lose her trust fund and that Wal-Mart did the right thing.

No apology needed but it is appreciated i surely dont mean to sound harsh forgive me if i have

[one love]

I cant really add to what pastor bill has said because he put it so well.

She recieved money for medical that her insurance paid, therefore the money that was to go to medical and did not was to go back to the insurance. Did she get anything for pain and suffering, im sure she would ahve if she got a million on medical

does anyone have that answer i am curious

[Pastor Bill]

I believe the million was the total, the ONLY money she was asked for was reimbursement of what the insurance had already paid out to be taken from the total she was given for medical expenses.

Further medical expenses would most likely have continued to be covered by the insurance, but this is a way some insurance policies try to keep costs down and defer the burden of payment off the premiums, and onto the person responsible for the accident.

I also am glad she is getting the EXTRA money, but would have loved to see Walmart treat this as a donation to her rather than adjusting the policy, this will mean WalMart doesn't pay that money, but those paying for their insurance will over the next few years.

[one love]

I believe the million was the total, the ONLY money she was asked for was reimbursement of what the insurance had already paid out to be taken from the total she was given for medical expenses.

Further medical expenses would most likely have continued to be covered by the insurance, but this is a way some insurance policies try to keep costs down and defer the burden of payment off the premiums, and onto the person responsible for the accident.

I also am glad she is getting the EXTRA money, but would have loved to see Walmart treat this as a donation to her rather than adjusting the policy, this will mean WalMart doesn't pay that money, but those paying for their insurance will over the next few years.

did someone beat you with a smart stick today man you are on point

nothing you have said doesnt show a lack of love or concern you just wanted it done right as I.

[Pastor Bill]

No, but it's quiet at work today, I've spent a couple days (at least the evenings after work) with my Mom & Dad, and getting ready to leave tomorrow morning to head back to Illinois to the town where I grew up (Wilmington) to visit friends. put it all together, and I guess my mind is just freed up to actually think rather than most of the time it's working in 4-5 directions at once and can't do any of them straight!