Thread: Walmart is Evil

Mike, my mom grew up in Turlock and still has a friend living there. I'm sure she has heard about the whole Walmart issue you describe. It's sad they feel the need to force themselves upon us... not winning people over but more forcing business out of necessity because everything else is out of business.

And I just read that walmart has dropped the suit.

link and link

Good to see the lawyer said they did the right thing, I wonder if that means he'll give back some of the legal fees.

Aww a happy ending

I love Wal-Mart. They reduce prices for all consumers. As for healthcare - their $4 prescriptions have helped many who lack insurance and reduced costs for many WITH insurance.
Whatever happened to free markets and competition?

I guess they did 'the right thing', but I'm sure I'm thinking different thing than the lawyer. They just realized the negative publicity is more expensive than the $200k (from the story yesterday, that's how much was currently in the trust). On the other hand had they just forfeited the $400k I doubt they would have gotten any positive publicity (they've thrown a lot more money in higher impact cases and nobody seems to notice it much), so that seems to be a sound business decision as well.

Walmart is just a business that is operating globally and trying to extract maximum profits as any other business. Their model is based on providing lower cost product (even if the quality is inferior). Apparently they are quite successful.

If I run a business I doubt that I will run it like Walmart, but that's what free market is - everybody is free to try their ideas and the ones that work succed.

I'd say the same thing that Bruno said - like it or not everybody gets more and more to compete on a global market. so people who are not competitive with overseas will have to take a hit on their standard of living. Since it's a campaign season there'll be more and more populism about 'level field' and 'americans being the most productive workers in the world', but that's just a generalization and as such is pretty meaningless. Not being american I don't particularily care for 'made in USA', or other such patriotic and emotional arguments, if a higher quality product comes from China or from Africa I'll take it. When I want a Champagne, I buy the one that's made in Champagne, not the one that's labeled 'California Champagne'.

The way I see it, for a while US has benefited from being more industrially developed than other nations, but with modern technology if somebody in india or china is smarter than me they are likely to be more successful than I am. While in the past I'd have an advantage that by the virtue of living in a developed country I have more opportunities to reach my potential, that's not the case anymore - even in less developed countries people are getting more and more opportunities to develop themselves.

My question is - if somebody in China starts making strops as good as Tony's but you can get them at half price including shipping, how many people will still be ordering from Tony? I doubt there will be that many. Tony is as successful as he is because he makes the best strops and the best value strops - all in the same product.

Gugi

I couldn't agree more. Though I won't shop at Walmart unless I have to. Their business model and business practices are what turn me off. They are poor members of the community. Like that old man who scares all the kids and has the keep off the grass signs.

I do find that I buy goods from discount retailers and yes made overseas. It makes economic sense for my budget to go as far as it has to. There are other retailers who make more friendly neighbors and are positive contributers to the communities they are a part of.

I know they give to charitys and such, that grumpy old man gives to the church too but you wouldn't want to be the kid who hits a baseball into his yard.

Like I said earlier, I am not trying to be a patriot by endorsing "buy only American." I just think it would help our economy to buy American products that are worth buying. If another country can make a better product at less cost (assuming again that they use ethical labor practices) I have no problem buying it. When it was my time to buy a new car, I opted for a used Audi instead of a new Taurus (or whatever else was in the price range). Because the car was used, I could afford it and the performance provided made the car a better value in my case.

As far as Tony's strops go, I agree with your prediction/scenario. I, luckily, have the funds to afford one of his strops and because I have some notion of who he is I would still be likely to buy his strop.

Originally Posted by jaegerhund

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 is that really you?

I think the issue here wasn't that wal mart had this clause in their health benefit package and just exercised their option, the issue is what is a clause like this doing in the package? If we take this to its logical conclusion why stop there? If you get sick and your insurance co pays out a couple hundred grand why can't they slap a lien on your house or garnishee your salary to get their money back or attach your bank accounts? What about your life insurance co? If you die in a plane crash and they pay your family a million bucks and you get a million dollar settlement why can't they sue you to get their money back too? How about that car wreck where the collision insurance pays you and the other guy has no insurance? Why can't your insurance co sue you to get it back? I'll tell you why, its because if a company did this they would go out of business through competition. The poor suckers at walmart have to take whatever walmart dishes out to them. There is no competition there. Sure they could try and buy insurance on the open market but those people could never afford it.

To those who fault not being aware of that clause, really now. How many of you when you get your credit card agreement with print so small you need a microscope to see it read every word or even read every provision in your health insurance policy or life insurance policy. If you say you do read every word you are probably in a very select group of people.

I think to all of you who sided with walmart on this issue I say shame on all of you.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I think the issue here wasn't that wal mart had this clause in their health benefit package and just exercised their option, the issue is what is a clause like this doing in the package? If we take this to its logical conclusion why stop there? If you get sick and your insurance co pays out a couple hundred grand why can't they slap a lien on your house or garnishee your salary to get their money back or attach your bank accounts? What about your life insurance co? If you die in a plane crash and they pay your family a million bucks and you get a million dollar settlement why can't they sue you to get their money back too? How about that car wreck where the collision insurance pays you and the other guy has no insurance? Why can't your insurance co sue you to get it back? I'll tell you why, its because if a company did this they would go out of business through competition. The poor suckers at walmart have to take whatever walmart dishes out to them. There is no competition there. Sure they could try and buy insurance on the open market but those people could never afford it.

To those who fault not being aware of that clause, really now. How many of you when you get your credit card agreement with print so small you need a microscope to see it read every word or even read every provision in your health insurance policy or life insurance policy. If you say you do read every word you are probably in a very select group of people.

I think to all of you who sided with walmart on this issue I say shame on all of you.

Because the health plan initially paid for the costs of the woman's medical care. A court later determined that the medical costs were the responsibility of another party (the truck company or whatever). She was then "reimbursed" for these expenses that she never paid in the first place - her health plan paid them. The health plan then said "we'd like our portion back". This is reasonable. I'd rather my health plan premiums not be based on medical costs that are in fact the responsibility of someone else' auto insurance.

I agree with you that most of us have no "choice" about what plan we can choose. We usually don't have many options. Its take it or leave it and few can afford or even get individual coverage.

EDIT: I guess this depends on whether the award of "damages" includes medical expenses. Walmart should only be able to recoup court determined medical expenses. If the contract allows them to pursue "punitive damages", for example - that would be TRULY evil on Walmarts part. Who knows....

Jordan