Thread: Walmart is Evil

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

That women was insured by walmart, they were supposed to share the risk. that money was all she had for the rest of her life, how does wal mart need it more than she does. walmart is notorious for stealing from their employees.working through breaks and lunches an off the clock overtime. they do this crap all the time and then they run a pr campaign about how much they do for the community. they can do for the community because they stole it from their employees. theyve also done their share to destroy the american economy, you cant find anything theremade in america and because they are so big, other retailers have to compete by buying overseas slave labor as well. this leads to unemployment here at home, because all thru the 1990s we were boxing up our factories and shipping them overseas. there is a lotmore that could be and should be said on this subject, but dont fool yourselves walmart is evil, they stole what was left of those peoples lives and stuck it in their pocket. you buy insurance from your employer to protect yourself, not the company.

While I agree that WalMart is evil, their health plan does not share the risk when another party is responsible for the injury and paying for the injured parties medical bills. They have a right to get that money back. The WalMart health plan (and most others) don't base premiums on paying for those bills. If they did, we would all be paying more for our health plans.

What I don't understand is why the settlement didn't account for this. I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like theirs did a pretty lousy job.

As has been stated, WalMart missed a chance to do the right thing and get some good PR at the same time. Stupid and evil...

Jordan

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

that money was all she had for the rest of her life, how does wal mart need it more than she does.

it ain't about need, it's about legal entitlement. no one put a gun to her head and made her sign up for that insurance with those terms. if she hated the insurance, or her job, or both, then she can get another one. i am still amazed that people are blaming walmart for this... all they did was exactly what they promised to do under that TOS for their corporate insurance policy.

for all the bleeding hearts that talk about what insurance "should" do/cover... that's completely irrelevant. insurers are required to tell you their terms up front... just because you sign them and don't like them doesn't mean they are screwing you. if you didn't like the terms, you should have gotten other insurance, period.

I know we're getting off track here, but this issue goes to the fact that we are talking about a "car accident". We have a different system of insurance for car accidents. "Health insurance" is not financed to cover treatments that are covered under another insurance - like vehicle insurance or business liability or workman's comp. etc. You may notice that when you go to the ER or certain types of doctors with an injury, they will ask you up front "was this the result of a car accident?". That's why.

Again, the woman's future should have been addressed in the settlement.

Jordan

Originally Posted by jockeys

it ain't about need, it's about legal entitlement. no one put a gun to her head and made her sign up for that insurance with those terms. if she hated the insurance, or her job, or both, then she can get another one. i am still amazed that people are blaming walmart for this... all they did was exactly what they promised to do under that TOS for their corporate insurance policy.

for all the bleeding hearts that talk about what insurance "should" do/cover... that's completely irrelevant. insurers are required to tell you their terms up front... just because you sign them and don't like them doesn't mean they are screwing you. if you didn't like the terms, you should have gotten other insurance, period.

Now Jockeys -- there is no need to talk common sense --- and please in all future discussion speak more from an emotional angle -- don't use any of that prefrontal cortex brain ooze -----really get with the times man (I know deep down somewhere there is a little Jockeys who can proclaim victimhood about something --- tap into that and join the ranks of the noveau American weeny --- really you're just making it difficult for us and yourself )

Well, in short, I agree with you.



Justin

Walmart consistently has given more $ to charity than any other company in the US. It also gives ~ $1 billion a year to its employees via 401k. But for some reason Walmart can't buy my respect

Also, I hate to sound mean-spirited but why did Walmart have to sue in order to get their money back if this family is so concerned about doing the right thing?

I guess not everyone thinks with their emotions Justin!

as much as Wal-Mart is "Evil" for destroying the small shops and such, they also do alot of good. After Hurricane Katrina no other single source of aid (even the united states government) donated more in terms of money, food, clothing and other goods and services than Wal-mart.

keep that in minda next time the topic of "destroying the backbone of america", "killing mom and pop shops", hurting the little guy, corporate greed comes up.

not to mention that if all the other stores everywhere would stop gouging people and over charging for everything, Wal-mart may not have done so well in the first place.

Originally Posted by mvforza

Mike, If this is too personal, feel free not to answer, but what part of central california do you live in? I suppose my example of Walmart's "evilness" was poor because they are legally entitled to what they are doing. My argument is just that their business ethics are some of the worst in the world

Turlock, California
What Walmart did in my town wasn't legal, they couldn't get approval to build in town, so they bought farmland outside of city limits. once the Walmart was built they bribed certain counsel members to annex the land into city limits. We have a historic downtown that the city is trying to preserve, and Walmart defied our wishes. They then tried to force the city counsel to rezone another area for their use as a supercenter... The city responded by outlawing large supercenter type establishments. Had Walmart gotten their wish, they would have closed the old walmart, and created a slum, and they would have forced the closure of most of the other stores in town including downtown. There just isn't room for them.
They filed a lawsuit, which cost our small comunity a large ammount of money to fight, and they lost. The land they bought is still vacant, Walmart hasn't sold it, I'm certain they are waiting for another opportunity to force themselves on us.

It could be worse though, the Ceres Walmart, about 15 miles away... is a hangout for every tweaker and drug dealer in the area. Not a place you want to go after dark.

Again, thank you all for your answers, it just helps to create a thought-provoking discussion. As far as legality is concerned, Jockeys is indeed correct.

As a communication studies major in college right now, I most definitely agree that Walmart's PR department missed a great opportunity to improve their image.

WOW!!!! this post broght everyone out,,lol,,,it's true though when you talk about these things,,LEAVE YOUR EMOTIONS AT THE DOOR..