Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > December > 03 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USShould medical care be repaid?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
You decide.
Deborah Shank, a Wal-Mart employee in Cape Girardieu, Mo., was seriously injured when the car she was driving was broad-sided by a big-rig truck. She suffered major brain trauma and was hospitalized for months. Her medical bills, paid by Wal-Mart’s health plan, approached half a million dollars.
The trucking company had a $1 million policy. Its insurance carrier paid her husband, Jim, $200,000. After legal fees, he collected $119.000. It paid Mrs. Shank $700,000 — or $417,477 after legal expenses and attorney fees. That sum was directed to a court-created trust for her future care. The accident ruined her life. She’s now in a nursing home with the bulk of her care paid for by Medicare and Medicaid.
All of this information was gathered and reported Nov. 20 by Vanessa Fuhrmans of The Wall Street Journal.
After the settlement, Wal-Mart’s health plan sued the Shanks seeking reimbursement for the $470,000 it had paid for her care. By virtue of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, it’s clear that employers can recover money paid for medical expenses from settlements and awards when that’s one of the plan’s terms.
The question: Should Wal-Mart recover? As its CEO, what decision would you make in this and other instances — considering that the costs borne would result in higher premiums or less coverage for a worker making near minimum wage? What about Medicaid, the taxpayer-provided health care plan for the nation’s poor? Should it recover (which it’s not proposing to do here) when the person covered collects a large sum? And should the recovery come before or after the lawyers are paid?
My inclination is to support the Wal-Mart health care plan’s effort to seek at least partial recovery, though it should come from the entire $700,000 and not just her portion. The attorney’s claim should not be superior to the health care provider’s.
You decide.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Redneck Convert
December 3, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this
Well, I’m not a expert in insurance. But it seems to me it ain’t right for a poor employer like WalMart to be out all of that money and not get anything back after a court has ordered a payout. If you don’t pay WalMart back then Private Innerprize will be set back and we won’t have cheap things from China to buy and there won’t be nothing for us rednecks to do on Saturday night on account of WalMart having to close up.
So I say give the lawyer 10 or 20 bucks for their trouble and give the rest to WalMart. Maybe WalMart can slip a hunderd to the lawyer too after they collect their half million. I figure people like jbmlaw is just scabs on the rest of us, but they need a little change so they can go to fancy places and have drinks after work and laugh about how they screwed people out of a lot of money.
And make sure the house these people have gets sold to pay the guvmint back for all the Medicaid and Medicare this woman will be using the rest of her life. It ain’t our fault some big truck run a red light and hit the woman. We don’t live in some country where anything comes free. Only a librul Democrat would think different. So kick the man out of the house and sell it so our taxes won’t go up on account of the woman using all that guvmint welfare. Might as well get all his bad news out of the way at the same time.
Anyway, the Republican Solution to a problem like this is pretty easy. I just wish Wooten would come up with a harder problem.
By Peter
December 3, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this
Jim may have it right…..the lawyers get more than the insurance company, and that’s not right.
Well folks it is all about the lawyers, look at ALL the politicians out there, just how many are NOT Lawyers.
I wonder how many of our politicians get all the freebe’s as they suck our system dry ?
By Dusty
December 3, 2007 9:16 AM | Link to this
Peter @9:07
Are you talking about John Edwards? Sounds like it.
By Hawaii will KILL Georgia's Ugly Mutts
December 3, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
Of Course WalMart should recover, they provide health insurance, not enrichment insurance for accident victims. The insurance company for the at fault driver had to pay all medical expenses for this accident, and since Walmart’s health insurance program had already paid much of the bill, it had the right to recover its money. Not only does Walmart have the right to recover its money, but the hospital has the right to reverse any discounts it gave Walmart’s health plan for the hospital care, and reimpose the full charges. Why? Because in network negotiated costs only apply to what the health insurer pays, and since the health insurer was repaid in full, they paid nothing. The at fault drivers insurance company usually has no such discounts negotiated with hospitals. FYI - This is the way it works here in Georgia, and the way it is supposed to work all across the country. Hospitals are now going for full reimbursement of their bloated costs for all auto accident victims, regardless of health insurance discounted rates.
By Shar
December 3, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this
This is an unbelievably bad idea. WalMart’s effort to throw the healthcare costs for its employees onto the taxpayers has already pushed state lawmakers, including conservative Georgia’s, into legislative efforts to force them to pay. Suing an insured employee for her settlement money to recoup medical costs is suicidally stupid. They will never recoup enough money to offset the public relations plummet, and the company could well find itself once again facing frustrated lawmakers who are unwilling to front for an 800 pound gorilla that likes to rip the wings off crippled flies. The amount available, particularly after legal costs, is negligible.
If WalMart feels it must recoup, it should sue the trucking company, which appears to have gotten off very lightly for the damage caused by its employee.
WalMart has a well-deserved reputation for corporate ruthlessness, and has begun to feel effects of consumer and taxpayer resentment on its bottom line. Its public relations arm has been overhauled and there has been recognition at the highest corporate level of the need to address the problem. This action reeks of what got them in trouble in the first place.
By jbmlaw
December 3, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. The legal issue is not a hard question: subordination of a claim has a long history in law. I think Blue Cross/Blue Shield, by way of example only, almost always reserves such a right in its coverage. Fortunately such devastating cases are comparatively rare.
I am unaware whether Wal-Mart administers its own health care plan, or whether it contracts with an outside contractor. If the latter, of course, whether to sue to recover would not be a WAL-Mart CEO decision. However, the argument, that Ms. Shank’s co-insureds should bear the full cost of her recovery without regard to winnings in the litigation lottery, is unreasonable. (And make no mistake, the co-insureds would be the ones paying higher premiums, in the form of foregone raises if nothing else.)
A better question would address the desirability of litigation over “negligence” cases. All of us would agree that intentional torts ought to feature a potential for recovery against the tortfeasor. I don’t think the moral case for litigation is as strong for negligence cases. If there is not a sound criminal case, maybe there ought not be a civil case either, allow any and all to purchase whatever insurance they wish, or bear the risks otherwise.
By Ron
December 3, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this
Tough one ,Jim.The CEO part is easy.Get the Money back.This is what CEO’S do,they make money for the company.It’s their job.Don’t pay the lawyers first?You won’t be discussing settlements in the future if you don’t.Lawyers are not going to work for recognition for long.Where does this leave the Shanks?Not in an enviable position.We all feel that ,morally, this is all wrong,and we are right.It is wrong.The whole system sucks for the disadvantaged.Wal-mart’s money paid to keep this woman alive and Wal-mart should be reembursed by the insurance company,then the Shanks actual future expenses should be paid out of insurance as they occur.Attorney fees paid only on monies transferred to Wal-Mart.No settlement for the Shanks other than her expenses continue to be paid for as long as they’re needed.
By Van
December 3, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this
Let me get this straight -
She is involved in an accident - Her heath insurance pays
Her husband settles with the trucking company.
Why would Wal-Mart go after the woman? It would seem logical to go after the Trucking Company, the party at fault. The woman wasn’t at fault, Wal-Mart wasn’t at fault, the Trucking Company was at fault.
Maybe I am missing something here, or everyone is still out to get Wal-Mart.
By Peter
December 3, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this
Dusty have a butter roll……
By Peter
December 3, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
Let’s NOT talk about Lawyers, and politics…..? Why NOT ?
Under every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, the national debt as a percentage of GDP has risen significantly, meaning our long-term financial situation has declined.
Of course, Congress also plays an important role in spending decisions. But while Congress and presidents often spar about how much to spend on particular programs, the final overall spending level is typically close to that set by the president.
Under Ronald Reagan, for example, every final budget passed by the largely Democratic Congress was within 1 percent of the total spending that Reagan had requested. And of course, the current President Bush never vetoed a budget bill sent to him when his fellow Republicans controlled Congress.
So the evidence of the historic record is indisputable. Under the classic definition of fiscal conservatism, Democrats are better stewards than Republicans.
Put this jam on that Butter roll, and get out the BIG SUV’s.
By Redneck Convert
December 3, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
Wooten, please tell Peter not to get Sister Dusty all riled up. She already accuses me of waking up in a mansion on a golf course. Its hard to tell what she’ll do if Peter keeps sticking some spurs into her. Just tell Peter to leave a mean woman alone.
By Phil
December 3, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
We need no fault body insurance - where’s that little Gecko? I think he’s cute and a lot smarter than a caveman too.
By Glenn
December 3, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this
Top-notch column, Jim. You’ve committed flawless journalism in spite of your editorial colleagues. Now go, and spite some more.
The greenies, such as the self-described “Democrats” here, habitually knock Wal-Mart and maybe for good reason, but one can’t give straightforward answers to your straightforward questions without at least momentarily depoliticizing the Waltons and their corporate “family” so as to consider the course a conscientious company should take.
I’d say that its conscientiousness includes it attention to fiduciary responsibility, which in this case requires them to seek to be made whole for their overpayment of benefits. (As you’ve told it, this case does not involve a worker’s comp claim.) Jbm may think better of it, but I think they owe it to the “Wal-Mart family”, to whom Corporate is utterly transparent and fair in its dealings, to recoup the money and sweep it back into the dividend pool, as it were.
But then perhaps, for reasons of which you’re aware, I should’ve recused myself!
Oh, what the hell, here goes: GO WAL-MART!
[Rudy&Out]
By AmVet
December 3, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this
getalife, I just read where the former Buckeye, Bo Pelini is heading back to Lincoln. In 2003 the Black Shirts, true to their historical dominance, were VERY impressive under his tutelage.
I smell another Nebraska national championship coming!
That should be one great game on January 7.
By Auntie Kepila
December 3, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
Hawaii Will KILL Georgia’s Ugly Mutts,
Aloha. And yes, I promise. Not for wahine nor Kruegerands would I ever go three to a match. Sometimes it’s necessary to tend to the husbandry of one’s credible threat, however, with an accent on the credible. Trust you’ve gathered that there’s a subtext to my rantings.
Dangit, Shar, here I was all smug as a bug in my Wal-Mart position, and you had to come on all reasonable & fiery & such like you do. You trying to make people rethink before they’ve even finished their first cup?
Dusty, Peter is John Edwards! Has been right along. See? You just might get to like Edwards, in person.
…Nah!
[Rudy 08]
By getalife
December 3, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this
“The Bush administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about the White House visits of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
But in a court filing Friday night, administration lawyers said that the Secret Service has identified a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff’s trips to the White House.
The Justice Department, citing a Cold War-era court ruling, declared that the contents of the “Sensitive Security Records” cannot be publicly revealed even though they could show whether Abramoff made more visits to the White House than those already acknowledged.”
Chavez defeated, Putin cheated, w …….
Geez.
By WTF?
December 3, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
Walmart ain’t shyt!!!!!!
By Dusty
December 3, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
RedNeck @9:58
Don’t get mad at me ‘cause you live in a double decker shanty by the golf course. Go have a butter roll at Waffle House with Peter. Aunti Kapila thinks Peter is John Edwards. Nawww…John Edwards wouldn’t be caught dead at Waffle House. He done rose above it!!
By Phil
December 3, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
Our fiscal irresponsibility is all part of a master plan that we minions are simply not capable of grasping. We shall help the undeveloped countries of the world by moving all manufacturing activity to these countries. Then, we shall import their products through a series of value-added distributors, marketers, inspectors, handlers, service providers, CEOs, COOs, CFOs, Directors, Customs Agents, IRS agents, Border Patrols, private accountants, corporate accountants, Senators, Legislators, County Managers, Election Oversight Committees, Wal-Mart greeters, and most importantly, lawyers. After having sufficiently enhanced the portfolios of all the aforementioned as well as those behind-the-scenes who prefer not to be in the so-called spotlight, we shall hire a specialist or specialists, at minimum wage, to display said product(s), and to provide an orderly financial transaction between the aforementioned parties and the presumed financially stable purchaser. Upon completion of said transaction, the aforementioned parties may, at their sole discretion, provide the purchaser - for a nominal fee or fees - with optional warranties, additional product enhancers, product transport to any desired destination within a 50-mile radius of a yet undetermined origin, and professional installation, orientation, and/or audio-visual interpretation of any claimed - real or imaginary - capability or other defining characteristic of said product. After sufficient time has elapsed, the originator of said transaction shall declare said sale for compensation, taxation, indemnification, calculation of commissions, salaries, bonuses, and other reparrations as required by the respective statutes, whether domestic or foreign, as long as such statutes are not legally construed as binding until prescribed by judgements from all legal jurisdictions that may or may not be of import in said transaction. Hence, only after written acknowledgement by all affected parties to all affected parties of completion of all fiduciary responsibilities, payment shall be made to the original seller in the original country of origin of said product where said payment shall be made in USD currency and only after sufficient time has elapsed for ink on said currency to become fully dried as provided for in the definition of dried per the attached document.
By Tiny Tim
December 3, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
Of course Walmart should enforce the terms of the health insurance contract and collect. It’s not Walmart’s fault that the Shanks settled for such a paltry sum considering the millions they deserved had they hired a competent lawyer. Their lawyer must be either a pirate or a fool.
I once was injured by a gwinnett county school bus. The lawyer I chose was also a judge employed by gwinnett county, and he steered me wrongly and I got a pittance of what I deserved. He was a corrupt pirate who owes me big time. The statute of limitations has expired so he thinks he got away with it. But Tiny Tim dont like being abused. Tiny Tim stays awake at night thinking what could have been. Tiny Tim wonders if God should really bless everyone. Tiny Tim gonna rehire the same lawyer to unwittingly expose himself for his conflict of interest. Tiny Tim got a plan.
God Bless most of us.
By Auntie Kepila
December 3, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
You’re right, Dusty. He keeps a Waffle House fully equipped off one of his upstairs kitchen pantries. And that polarizing wannabe cum has-been demagogue won’t let his Waffle House staff join the union and keep an open shop.
Hypocrite.
By Glenn
December 3, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
Phil,
My, my. What a lot of people it takes to run the largest global retailer in history! Who’d have guessed! And, as you explain, the deviously exploitative way in which each is in for the money (we might’ve known!)—I mean, it simply rocks one back to see it all laid out like that.
Unfortunately your pitch-perfect satire misses the mark, hitting as it does the red bullseye of Target, as it is that giant retailer which operates on a marketing model, whereas the late Sam’s genius lay in distribution, the driver, as it were, of Wal-Mart’s success.
Wal-Mart is naive and relatively inexperienced in tricky marketing, whereas Target begins with consumer-oriented design and moves backward to the swampy sweatshops and the maquiladores alongside which many of Wal-Mart’s products are indeed made.
Remember Tianenmen. Boycott Chinese!
[Rudy&Out]
By Tiny Tim
December 3, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
God Bless Me.
By Peter
December 3, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this
Wow you girls are really have a ball with all that Intelligence you seem to keep WELL HIDDEN.
Ok say something that has value today…..that will be a welcome change !
By jm
December 3, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this
What Mr. Wooten fails to mention is that the taxpayers are now paying for Mrs. Shank’s medical bills. The money that Walmart recovered was placed into a Medicaid trust to pay for her long term care.
So, while Walmart got the money they were legally entitled to, the taxpayers are getting the bill.
By Dirtty
December 3, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this
Hi, I’m Dusty’s little sister, sort of the black sheep of the family. They call me Dirtty, with two t’s, whereas Dusty is just a little specked with dirt, she only rates one t, but I get two as it seems I’m covered in it!
By jbmlaw
December 3, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
Dear Van @ 9:33, you raise a great legal question. The subordination agreement theoretically conveyed a “right to litigate” to Wal-Mart, but the victim always retains the ultimate right subject to Wal-Mart’s offset. Had the victim not elected to play the lottery, Wal-Mart could have litigated that case. The trucking company will have to defend its negligence only once, and the victim decided to roll the dice. I suppose there is a malpractice argument there, arguing that the attorney settled too cheap.
Dear Peter @ 9:56, at risk of asking a stupid question, are the democrats proposing spending more for non-defense pork than did republicans, or are they proposing spending less? Does that question not really address the issue? I think your assertion that spending percentages vary “significantly” is fundamentally false, but I wonder how the percentage of nondefense spending today compares to, say, 1979? Oh, that’s right, you are concealing the democrats’ practice of gutting national defense, always corrected on the republican watch.
Dear Glenn @ 10:04, my foggy language tried to accord with your arguments.
By Dirtty
December 3, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this
jmblaw - i don’t see how anyone could gut national defense, seeing as how the usa spends more money on defense than the rest of the wolrd combined. Don’t worry about a deficit, we just print more money, works every time.
By Phil
December 3, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
Glenn, et al (if needed),
My intent was not to single out or spare any company, or individual for that matter, with my ramblings. There are too many “bottom lines” to even list here but I’ll throw out a few for a muse ment:
We are all part of the problem and the solution whether we like it or not. What are we individually and collectively going to do about it? Most ask what can we do about it? Maybe this global machine we call society, etc., has reached a sort of critical mass and it will roll where it will - I don’t know. All I know for now is that I have my 50something (just a play on a TV series) years on this earth along with all the ups and downs that the years have brought my way. I wouldn’t trade them for the world because I am enjoying my life and my family. That said - along with the fact that I have fulfilled the first three of those primal needs (i.e., food, shelter, survival of the species, and everything else), I am now into that cyclical period in U.S. politics where I must either devote some of my time to studying candidates in preparation for my eventual selection of the lesser of evils or, plan a trip to the beach instead.
So much to do, so little time to do it.
Besides, it’s cold outside and I would rather stay warm indoors this morning.
Wal-Mart, Target, seaweed clothing,……dog food additives, lead paint, sweat shops, seafood that OD’d on antibiotics….All ripe for the legal picking. Who did right? Who did wrong? Who knew they did right or wrong? Those are but a few of the arguments posed for resolution before our judges. We are all entitled to answers - unless you want to settle out of court and the public eye.
Am I just a bitter, getting older, person? Perhaps on some issues. But, if time buys you anything in this world, what shall it be? The will to speak one’s mind, the right to be a cynic? As we all know too well, talk is cheap. So I can certainly afford to be these things if I choose.,
By DebbieDoRight
December 3, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
Oh boo hoo… Poor WalMart!!! They have subpar insurance for their employees, they pay little to nothing into their employee’s insurance plans and now someone is getting mad because WalMart wants to get back the little bit of money they did put in?!!?!! Where’s the justice in that!!??
WalMart can barely afford to let go of its trillions in worldwide profits to pay the employer part of the health insurance so that their employees can at least have insurance!! And now people want them to just turn the other cheek when one of their injured employee’s won a little bit of money in a lawsuit?! Egads! $200K may be just a drop in the bucket to Walmart (because actually the Health Care Provider had to pay that money out, not WalMart, that’s why it’s called “insurance”); but to let this blatant attack on Corporate Greed go would make WalMart look like a punk and not the jackal that it really is!!
Who cares if this lady, who will be indigent for the rest of her life and will need constant around the clock care, will need the money more than WalMart? It’s the principle of the thing!!!
Why WalMart also has insurance on their employees just to cover their losses in case the employee dies while in their employ! They have to think of their profits and if someone dies while in their employ, they OWE Walmart for WalMart’s pain and suffering!!!:
Suit hits Wal-Mart role as worker life insurance beneficiary
To Wal-Mart, it was just a tax loophole. To Vicki Rice, it’s a heartless revelation in a year of disillusionment over corporate tactics.
After her husband, an assistant store manager in Tilton, N.H., died of a heart attack, Rice discovered the retail giant had purchased life insurance on thousands of employees, including her husband, and named itself the beneficiary. Wal-Mart pocketed at least $300,000 with her husband’s death; Rice and her two children received no proceeds.
Poor, poor WalMart!!
By Modern Conservative
December 3, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
Rudy in ‘08!
By DebbieDoRight
December 3, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
Suit hits Wal-Mart role as worker life insurance beneficiary:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:m3LExAJAmsJ:www.pvamu.edu/Include/College%2520of%2520Business/Facultypages/Vetter/FINA%25202213/Articles/insurance-employee-walmart.doc+WalMart+employees,+death+benefits&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
By DebbieDoRight
December 3, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this
http://www.pvamu.edu/Include/College%20of%20Business/Faculty_pages/Vetter/FINA%202213/Articles/insurance-employee-walmart.doc
By BS Aplenty
December 3, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
This is a tragic incident and tricky legal issue for Wal-Mart. The media spotlight on this case should make Wal-Mart amenable to quietly settling with the Shanks & leaving them a serious chunk of that settlement check.
GO DAWGS send the pineapple pickers apackin’.
By GaLiberal
December 3, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this
Moron Jim says: My inclination is to support the Wal-Mart health care plan’s effort to seek at least partial recovery, though it should come from the entire $700,000 and not just her portion. The attorney’s claim should not be superior to the health care provider’s.
What Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that this woman paid premiums for healthcare coverage. The healthcare company agreed to pay for her medical costs. Wal-Mart provided the health insurance as an employee benefit which it now seeks to recover retroactively because this woman was given a legal settlement for her pain and suffering. How callous!
Another thing that Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that the settlement was put in a trust for her health care expenses and can’t be used to pay an recovery. That would have to come out of the family’s pocket which probably isn’t very deep. Most likely any claim would be so burdensome they would have to declare bankruptcy. So Mal-Wart, a multi-billion dollar company, wants to force people into bankruptcy so they can “contain” their health insurance costs. Way to go Wal-Mart.
Another thing Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is Wal-Mart is a huge contributor to the Rethuglicon party. So of course Moron Jim and his drones are going to side in the with poor, put upon multi-billon dollar company. Hell with that woman who’s disabled for whatever life she has left. Wal-Mart needs to keep their stock price up so they can continue donating to the Rethuglicon party.
When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And Wal-Mart is living proof.
By GaLiberal
December 3, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this
Moron Jim says: My inclination is to support the Wal-Mart health care plan’s effort to seek at least partial recovery, though it should come from the entire $700,000 and not just her portion. The attorney’s claim should not be superior to the health care provider’s.
What Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that this woman paid premiums for healthcare coverage. The healthcare company agreed to pay for her medical costs. Wal-Mart provided the health insurance as an employee benefit which it now seeks to recover retroactively because this woman was given a legal settlement for her pain and suffering. How callous!
Another thing that Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is that the settlement was put in a trust for her health care expenses and can’t be used to pay an recovery. That would have to come out of the family’s pocket which probably isn’t very deep. Most likely any claim would be so burdensome they would have to declare bankruptcy. So Mal-Wart, a multi-billion dollar company, wants to force people into bankruptcy so they can “contain” their health insurance costs. Way to go Wal-Mart.
Another thing Moron Jim doesn’t tell you is Wal-Mart is a huge contributor to the Rethuglicon party. So of course Moron Jim and his drones are going to side in the with poor, put upon multi-billon dollar company. Hell with that woman who’s disabled for whatever life she has left. Wal-Mart needs to keep their stock price up so they can continue donating to the Rethuglicon party.
When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And Wal-Mart is living proof.
By jbmlaw
December 3, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this
Dear GaLiberal @ 1:08, did you really say that Hillary was on the Board of Directors of Walmart for six years? I’m shocked. Oh, that’s right, you didn’t tell us that.
By jbmlaw
December 3, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
Perhaps this is the beginning of understanding – the only question is which came first. Did Hillary borrow her national healthcare ideas from Walmart, or did Walmart get its healthcare ideas from Hillary?
By jbmlaw
December 3, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this
Dear Debbie @ various times, thanks for reminding us of one of the stupidest lawsuits ever filed. The one by those morons who think that Walmart should not be allowed to buy an insurance policy on their key employees. Though it’s hard to imagine someone being a key employee if he was too stupid to buy insurance to protect his family, isn’t it?
By deegee
December 3, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this
Does anyone want to speculate as to whether the Shank’s would have been better off if they had no health insurance at the time of the accident rather than having Wal-Mart’s health insurance? I am no expert but I think that their medical bills would have been paid by the trucking company’s insurance and they could have kept whatever they got for pain and suffering. Not sure if this is the case but if so, then there is no wonder why we hear that so many Wal-Mart employees are uninsured. Their employee health insurance plan is just another piece of overpriced crap that they peddle.
By Calling All Moonbats
December 3, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
Last week someone posted about that retired gay military Dem plant at the Republican CNN/Youtube debate. He was linked to Hillary’s campaign. As expected, some denialist moonbat from the moveon.org Dem party here said he was no plant, he was just someone asking tough questions (for 10 minutes and CNN let him go on and on - as if Clinton’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy has anything to do with current Republicans - as if that’s a vastly important topic to American voters). Well, the chickens have come home to roost. When the LA Times takes issue with the Clinton News Network and how it handled that debate, you absolutely know that something is wrong.
“In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it.”
Ouch. Uhm, that would be no to both.
By jbmlaw
December 3, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
Dear GaLiberal @ many times for the same post, you have just given me a great idea. I’ll take a lot of money that actually belongs to somebody else, put it into a long term family trust, then whine about the greedy people who then sue to recover what I took. Isn’t that a great idea?
By jbmlaw
December 3, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
Dear Deegee @ 1:41, “I think that their medical bills would have been paid by the trucking company’s insurance.” Is that is remotely possible, then why did they have to sue the trucking company? I never heard of suing somebody who was paying the bills.
By The old etymologist
December 3, 2007 1:50 PM | Link to this
I have noted countless dilettantes and their amateurish attempts at besmirching the Good Old Name of the Grand Old Party. I believe the fad started when Agnew antagonized the nattering nabobs.
But GaLiberal’s Rethuglicon is most praise worthy. Very creative and so Bohemian. And on so many levels.
First, the re - as in, oh no, not again!
Then the thug - as in gangsta or pimp but without the distasteful racial overtones
Next the con - self-explanatory for those whose careers culminated in either the White House or the Big House
But the creme de la creme - licon. It derives from the Old English term lichin meaning tongue bath and hearkens to licken as in finger licken good but with more of a suck up innuendo.
By Peter
December 3, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this
Good question…………then you decide to go ahead and do a spin move … Funny !
“Dear Peter @ 9:56, at risk of asking a stupid question, are the democrats proposing spending more for non-defense pork than did republicans, or are they proposing spending less? Does that question not really address the issue? I think your assertion that spending percentages vary “significantly” is fundamentally false, but I wonder how the percentage of nondefense spending today compares to, say, 1979? Oh, that’s right, you are concealing the democrats’ practice of gutting national defense, always corrected on the republican watch.”
Personally I think Pork spending is Rampant, and both sides are equally to blame….
I also think the Waste we see today is the WAR….. that has little to do with the statement you make about “you are concealing the democrats’ practice of gutting national defense, always corrected on the republican watch.”
Halliburton and the Corporations that are ALLOWED to RIP OFF America in a BIG WAY……. is the REPUBLICAN WAY!
The President and DICK gave their Buddies the contracts for this MADE UP WAR at well over inflated rates, since there were ZERO Bidding, and they were allowed to hand over ridiculous contracts.
Talk about being UN American, and ripping the general public off !
This is a very plain, and easy to understand example of the REPUBLICAN way of gouging America.
AND as asked many time on this Blog…… who is paying for the WAR, and the huge deficits we now have ?
You want to make WAR that costs Billions, yet cut taxes……
I guess personally your logic would be…..go out and buy bigger SUVs, houses, run up your credit card bills, etc……. then you would decide to work less and make less money to pay for it all…… and if possible let your kids handle the problem ?
Last statement of Gutting the defense of America seems funny, as most of our troops are off somewhere else….
Are we really MORE protected here in America, with our soldiers in another part of the globe ?
By Dusty
December 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this
GaLiberal@1:08
How far out in left field can you get? You are so warped that you say stuff like WalMart needs to keep their stock price up so they can continue donating to the Rethuglicon party.
WalMart is in business for the Republican Party? And now you’ve told those stockholders. Oh my!!
Is Victoria’s Secret in business for the Democratic Party? Well, the workings of Democrats is a “secret” to me.
And Burger King is trying to overthrow the country for a monarchy? I mean, they are giving out crowns already.
You have certainly done some vital undercover work. I award you the Al Gore Whether Weather Award for Tectonic Twits in mental melt down. Congratulations!!
By gt2117a
December 3, 2007 1:58 PM | Link to this
The only way Wal-mart should recieve payment is if the company provided the healthcare out of the goodness of their hearts because she was an employee. If she purchased a plan and she paid a premium every month, than Wal-mart has no right to the settlement money. Insurance, even if the company pay the bigger part of the premium, is not a loan. Its not saying “I’ll pay your healthcare until you get rich,” because that may never happen. I pay for insurance, and if I don’t go to the doctor in a year but still pay my premium, I can’t ask for that money back. If that is one of the plan’s terms than the Supreme Court should recognize the reciprocal. What Wal-mart should do is sue the trucking company, because it was them, not the lady, the cause of the accident.
By deegee
December 3, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this
Yes, jbmlaw, I understand that the Shank’s had to sue the trucking company to get their settlement but they could have kept what they got after the lawyers ripped them off for nearly half of it. The taxpayers are going to have to keep Mrs. Shank alive for the rest of her life. She may have been able to keep something for her pain and suffering were it not for Wal-Mart. Were I a Wal-Mart employee I would be canceling my health insurance right this very minute.
By Dusty
December 3, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this
Oh no… it’s Peter @1:54
Now Peter thinks we only have the Boy Scouts to protect America. In fact, I’d rather have the Girl Scouts for protection than Peter. He would surrender before you could say “scat”.
Poor guy, hasn’t had a happy day in years. Our troops are fighting for freedom and our country but Peter does not like it one bit. So there! Stop the show! Wave the white flag. Peter is ready to run.
By Wave the flag
December 3, 2007 2:30 PM | Link to this
For the Dusty’s of the world from a big time cut and runner:
The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living. ~Omar Bradley
By Phil o sopher
December 3, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this
The pros and cons of waging war:
Effective though messy population control (Much quicker than starvation and more predictable than disease).
Useful means of distracting public from what ails it.
Costs a lot of tax dollars (a small price to pay to be distracted from what ails you).
Increases employment in military related goods and services industries.
Increases R&D in more effective ways of blowing the crap out of each other.
Increases R&D in more effective ways to keep from getting the crap blown out of each other
Provides effective talking points during debates.
Makes heroes.
Demonstrates to our enemies that we won’t take any crap from them.
Did I mention that it makes heroes.
By Dusty
December 3, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this
Who is Omar Bradley? Never heard of him, but he sure sounds like one of Peter’s lib friends. He should support our troops.
By Dusty
December 3, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this
For the Cut and Runners of this world,2:30
Thank you for quoting Omar Bradley. Did he write that before or after he was a General in WWII leading our military in one of the greatest wars of all time?
General Omar Bradley never cut nor ran in his fight for America. How about you?
By Dusty
December 3, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this
Phil @ 2:40
You forgot something on your list of pros & cons of waging war.
It also shows the minimal amount of loyalty cut’n’runners have for protecting America.
By HIDT
December 3, 2007 2:53 PM | Link to this
You can tell she Googled Omar. Just too bad she did it so quickly before collecting any grief over the 2:43 post.
By DA
December 3, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this
For evidence of the death of American intellect, I present Exhibit A - Dusty.
By Dusty
December 3, 2007 3:07 PM | Link to this
HIDT @ 2:53
No, dingbat, we have Omar Bradley’s book. My husband always had great admiration for him. Maybe you should read something written by people who are not afraid to fight for what they believe in. Might do you some good.
Now… I leave for the day so don’t use my ID anymore.
So long….
By Phil o sopher
December 3, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this
I hope to never forget the people on those planes or in those towers. I still remember seeing those first images on the TV monitors while I was at work. I called my wife and asked her to turn on the TV at home. I could not believe what was happening. Those people are dead but not forgotten. Many may have died in their names - many more may die in their names.
If I should die from a terrorist attack, then please remember me. Try to find a way to prevent such things from happening again. But, please do not kill in my name.
Vengeance, like greed, can consume a person before they even realize what has overcome them.
By getalife
December 3, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this
Today she said,”It is like somebody said. It takes a Clinton to clean up bushies mess.”
That was me Presidents Clintons.
Bwa.
By Dusty
December 3, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
Had to come back and get my keys. Ta ta.
By local yokel
December 3, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
I kind a’ thought this Christ feller were agin war an’ pillagin’
By Peter
December 3, 2007 3:45 PM | Link to this
Wow are we really this profound today !
Better get that butter off the side of your chin !
“By Dusty
December 3, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this
Oh no… it’s Peter @1:54
Now Peter thinks we only have the Boy Scouts to protect America. In fact, I’d rather have the Girl Scouts for protection than Peter. He would surrender before you could say “scat”.
Poor guy, hasn’t had a happy day in years. Our troops are fighting for freedom and our country but Peter does not like it one bit. So there! Stop the show! Wave the white flag. Peter is ready to run.”
Dusty… I have had my own business for 20 plus years, and all is quite Fantastic……I have never quit on myself or my country.
That non sense muttering is precisely why I blog here, the truth needs to be told.
Now if you would kindly wipe the butter off your chin, as you are starting to get the keyboard all gooey…… AS obviously your thinking is…… NEED more butter biscuits.
By the WAY how do we pay for the WAR Dusty ?
Will it be in OUR generation or your kids Generation ?
Also did all notice Dusty responded for JBMLAW…… maybe they are the same, or is it Dusty’s old man, in the other room.
What ever the case……
STILL no response to questions about the WAR, less Taxes, and how we pay for all….. with less Taxes and more Bills !
Republican tactics of CUT and Run…… Cut taxes, run the country down, and leave to someone else to fix !
By jbmlaw
December 3, 2007 5:08 PM | Link to this
Dear Peter @ 1:54, I do not apologize for calling you out on your false comparison. Had you been honest - that republicans hold the line on non-defense spending and spend freely on the military, and contrasted that with the democrats starvation of the military and wild domestic spending - I would not have been compelled to “spin” the truth that you avoided. Instead, you buried the truth by obscuring the detail.
By Peter
December 3, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this
JBMLAW…….. The Republicans create LOTS of debt, create a BIGGER government, and still you have zero response to the question of how we pay for a MOST expensive WAR for oil.
Also the “wild domestic spending”, as you call it, if done correctly will be good for the economy, and perhaps save lives as Bridges, and other structures that need addressing are fixed or rebuilt.