Keep in mind that employees pay for a share of their insurance. By recouping costs such as this, Wal-Mart is also keeping the cost of insurance low for the employees.
I just don't see how this insurance situation is different from any other company. Wal-Mart paid money. The women got a settlement. Wal-Mart wants to recover what they spent. From what little I know, it seems like this woman's problem is that her settlement was entirely inadequate.
But kudos to Wal-Mart for keeping health care costs as affordable as possible. It helps the company and the employees.
My head spins anytime someone is against capitalism. The bottom line is that Wal-Mart came up with a system that the consumers want. If someone comes up with something better, Wal-Mart will fail. That's progress, and that's good for the economy. The only problem I see is if Wal-Mart becomes a monopoly. So far, I have not seen that happen.
Let me just give a quick example from my area. There are two towns that Wal-Mart wanted to go into. Town A had always been prosperous (from a rural standpoint). Town B was always the runner up. Wal-Mart wanted to go into Town A. Town A didn't want them. Wal-Mart went into Town B - 20 miles down the road. Town A's downtown has suffered, and has yet to recover. Town B's downtown is THRIVING. When we go to Wal-Mart we also stop in town and get a bite to eat, go to the bookstore, etc. (This is a rural area where people drive upwards of 1 hour to go to Wal-Mart.) We NEVER would have spent money in the downtown of Town B until Wal-Mart came along. And who is downtown? Small, independent businesses. They are thriving like never before. Sure, the Five and Dime can no longer make it, but that's okay. As long as the overall picture is much better, how can you complain?
I suppose that you could argue that the overall impact is not good, because Town A is suffering. I can tell you, though, that the negative side is nowhere near as much as the positive side for Town B. So overall, businesses have benefited.
In the same way that it is morally condemnable to take the wallet from a guy you saw being stabbed in front of you while he is still breathing but bleeding.
If you don't think that an employer has responsibility for the well-being and health of it's employees, even if their condition prohibits them from working for you any more, you are in my opinion nuts.
In the same manner you would have to say that the U.S. Army or the U.S. Government does not have any responsibility for it's veterans with blown off limbs.
But wait... Wal-Mart DID take care of the employee. They gave her insurance coverage that was far above her means. And when it came time to dole it out, they did. They took care of the woman. What is the issue here?
You do realize that the women still needs 24 hour care for the rest of her life? Since she can't work anymore she has to pay that from her little savings and from her settlement which she would not have any more if Wal-Mart had taken it in court.
Then she should have bought better insurance. Wal-Mart abided by it's contract; why are you so surprised that the woman has to abide by it too? Making sure the woman has 24-hour care for the rest of her life isn't Wal-Mart's responsibility.
In the same way that it is morally condemnable to take the wallet from a guy you saw being stabbed in front of you while he is still breathing but bleeding.
What's wrong with that? If the guy didn't want you to take his wallet, he would fight you for it. If he's too weak to fight, doesn't he deserve to lose his wallet?
Kinda like this:
I think this quote from thestory by CNNis very telling: The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
Well, if they didn't read and understand the small print, then they deserve nothing. They have the same negotiating power as Wal-Mart does, don't they?
If they don't have that kind of negotiating power and they're too weak to fight back, screw 'em. They're getting in the way of capitalist progress. All Hail the Wal-Mart!
It sounds like what is needed is reform to the legal system, not the retail system. If there can be no meeting of minds on a standard insurance contract, it would seem to me that the law is broken.
It sounds like what is needed is reform to the legal system, not the retail system. If there can be no meeting of minds on a standard insurance contract, it would seem to me that the law is broken.
There's no meeting of the minds on a contract like that. Wal-Mart (or whoever) has their HR person shove a paper in front of you on your first day of work. It has about thirty pages of small font text describing the difference between your PPOs, your HMO's and whatnot. Your HR person wants you to sign and get started with work. You sign and get out to the sales floor. There's no negotiating. It's a take it or leave it situation.
Later, you start thinking about what insurance you actually have. You start looking for insurance on your own. BTW, have you ever actually done this? Looked for insurance on your own? It's damned expensive. So you stick with what Wal-Mart gave you and hope you don't get sick.
So the law is broken? Should there be a law requiring employers to give all employees access to a pro-bono attorney to explain the terms and conditions to them?
@ Jason: She was a Wal-Mart shelf stocker for crying out loud. She probably couldn't afford "better insurance". Hell, she had to get divorced to become eligible for the insurance she has. But I agree with you, something in america is broken. Actually many things such as the medical system and the legal system.
But I guess this is the difference between growing up in a capitalist country and social market economy country.
So the law is broken? Should there be a law requiring employers to give all employees access to a pro-bono attorney to explain the terms and conditions to them?
As nice as that would sound, it sounds like too much time and effort. Also, I'm sure most employees would probably skip out on that sort of thing because they honestly don't think it's important.
It should be the responsibility of the individual to read the benefits and figure out what is best for them. I understand that no one wants to read all that stuff or the fine print, but regardless it falls on their responsibility.
There's no meeting of the minds on a contract like that. Wal-Mart (or whoever) has their HR person shove a paper in front of you on your first day of work. It has about thirty pages of small font text describing the difference between your PPOs, your HMO's and whatnot. Your HR person wants you to sign and get started with work. You sign and get out to the sales floor. There's no negotiating. It's a take it or leave it situation.
For most jobs, they require you to work 90 days before being eligible for medical benefits. Before those 90 days, HR normally sends the employee a packet in the mail about the medical benefits with all the different options to choose from. The employee then has around 30 days to enroll in whatever benefits are available.
Working for the government, we're lucky enough that we have a Health Insurance Information Fair a month before open enrollment is open. We have representatives come from all the available insurances offered through our work so we can get benefits information and get questions answered.
So the law is broken? Should there be a law requiring employers to give all employees access to a pro-bono attorney to explain the terms and conditions to them?
I don't think it's so much the law being broken as that you just can't expect for a worker to contract with a behemoth like Wal-Mart in the same way that he can with the guy next door. If the worker's kid wants to mow the guy-next-door's lawn, he can walk next door, sit down with the guy, and actually come to an agreement. Do you think that's what happens between the worker and Wal-Mart? Do you think the worker has any input into what an insurance contract through Wal-Mart covers? He either signs and thinks he has coverage or he goes bald and hope he doesn't get sick.
I never said it was an employee's right to negotiate a contract -- only to know what they are accepting when they sign. But if the language of the law and the concept of a contract is too difficult for an ordinary citizen to understand, I think that's the problem. The law should be accessible and understandable to everyone expected to abide by it; but it isn't. In order to comply with the law, you have to hire an attorney. The government is basically taxing you by forcing you to hire an attorney in order to live by the rules of the land.
Couldn't one also suggest that if her life was not profitable to save, it was the medical community's fault for not allowing her to die? Lots of different angles of blame are available.
Seems more like a problem with the game than the players.
As to Walmart and fake school lists, combining ignorance with an appeal to authority has always been a solid moneymaker. That's why cigarette ads back in the 30s used pictures of doctors in them. One might argue that it's not especially ethical, but Walmart is a publicly held company. Most people buy stock to make a buck, and don't really care about company policy otherwise, since they'll simply sell as soon as the stock is no longer making money. As such, their support of a company depends almost entirely on its ability to maximize profit, with a preference for the short-term. This has a way of shaping how a company does business.
You do realize that the women still needs 24 hour care for the rest of her life? Since she can't work anymore she has to pay that from her little savings and from her settlement which she would not have any more if Wal-Mart had taken it in court.
Society can't afford to provide that level of care to everyone. Even a universal care system will fail for people with extremely expensive illnesses. All we can do is slowly raise the bar of minimal guaranteed care as technology advances, and feel sorry for the people who die in the interim.
You do realize that the women still needs 24 hour care for the rest of her life? Since she can't work anymore she has to pay that from her little savings and from her settlement which she would not have any more if Wal-Mart had taken it in court.
Society can't afford to provide that level of care to everyone. Even a universal care system will fail for people with extremely expensive illnesses. All we can do is slowly raise the bar of minimal guaranteed care as technology advances, and feel sorry for the people who die in the interim.
Exactly right. Let's say the government decides they are going to pay for all health care for every person, and tax our brains out to pay for it. Even if the money works out, the system will still fail. There aren't enough organs available for the number of organ transplants. There aren't enough doctors to treat everybody in a timely manner. There aren't enough machines to test everyone who needs testing. There aren't enough surgeons to give everyone surgery who needs it.
Right now we solve this problem by giving out the available health care supply to people based mostly on money. The disadvantage of this system is that some people without money, sadly, will not receive care. The advantage is that in the long run more money is put into health care research, and we will be able to give more care to more people over time.
Bad things happen, and they can't always be fixed perfectly every time. Welcome to life. Get used to it.
Right now we solve this problem by giving out the available health care supply to people based mostly on money. The disadvantage of this system is that some people without money, sadly, will not receive care. The advantage is that in the long run more money is put into health care research, and we will be able to give more care to more people over time.
Why would more money be put into health care research?
Why would more money be put into health care research?
Here's a made up situation. You have five medicines.
a) You give all five medicines to poor people. You get $0. The pharmaceutical company, the scientists in the drug lab, the hospital, the doctors, the nurses, etc. all lose money. b) You give all five medicines to rich people. You get rich people money. The company, the scientists in the drug lab, the hospital, the doctors, the nurses, etc. all get paid. The pharmaceutical company uses some of the money they get to do research on producing existing medicines more cheaply and also towards researching new medicines.
The reason that medicine costs so much money is because it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to invent them. The pharmaceutical companies aren't excessively greedy taking all your money for their fat wallets. Their excessively greedy because they need stupid amounts of money to be profitable considering how much research costs.
Great, so now we are at a point where a company can condemn a person to death. I think we just hit the definition of evil.
@Rym: Not everybody is in need of such special attention, but yes it can work. European medical systems do just that. What do you think nursing homes are for? You also got them in america.
To advance to Scott: Social medicine does work as proven by pretty much every western country except the United States. The problems you counted up with not enough organs, testing apparatus etc. ALSO happen in the U.S. except that in addition to that, people get shoved out the door for not having the money to pay for it.
I think the core of why America is such a fucked up country in my view is that many things that directly influence the general well-being of people, such as health care or as a minor example school lunches, are either run by or heavily influenced by for-profit organizations who only seek cheapest and therefore most rudimentary solutions. Guess how many more people could be treated or receive better treatment if you cut out HMOs and have the profits the HMOs reap used as additional funding while every customer would still pay the same fees?
Not everybody is in need of such special attention, but yes it can work. European medical systems do just that. What do you think nursing homes are for? You also got them in america.
You seem to misunderstand. I am wholly a proponent of universal health care. I simply feel that such a system should demarcate the precise minimum level of care provided for all. Care above that level should be limited to charity and those who can pay, thus fostering continued research. It's the best way to take advantage of the resource-supporting nature of capitalism while still helping as many people as possible.
The reason that medicine costs so much money is because it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to invent them. The pharmaceutical companies aren't excessively greedy taking all your money for their fat wallets. Their excessively greedy because they need stupid amounts of money to be profitable considering how much research costs.
Marcia Angell, former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, and other critics, note that for all their talk of innovation, drug companies have in recent years turned out fewer and fewer new drugs. Angell also points out that many of the recently released drugs are not new compounds but simply "me too" drugs that duplicate existing medications already on the market.
Wal-Mart decided to give their employees insurance. In order to do so, they wanted to know what costs they would be incurring. They came up with a plan that covers you when you work for Wal-Mart. It does not cover every possible medical expense that you will incur for the remainder of your life.
This program has given thousands upon thousands of employees health care. That's a good thing.
This is a sad story, no doubt. However, keep in mind, this woman will be able to collect SSDI, Medicaid, etc. It's not like she's being left high and dry.
The other dirty little secret here is that minimum wage jobs are incredibly easy to find. A shelf-stocker at Wal-Mart can easily find work somewhere else. Yet Wal-Mart has no trouble finding employees and retaining them. Shouldn't you be asking yourself why this is the case? Apparently, it's not a bad place to work. Good luck getting health insurance if you work at Billy-Joe's Kwick Stop.
I'm not saying that Wal-Mart's insurance is that good. I personally think it sucks. Nonetheless, I suspect it's better than average for this segment of the work force. Wal-Mart shouldn't be vilified if that's the case.
It does not cover every possible medical expense that you will incur for the remainder of your life.
Some of the best health insurance plans don't cover everything. If people bothered to actually look at the exclusions and limitations on their health insurance, they'd be surprised.
I agree with kilarney on this matter. It is a sad what happened, however there could be other possibilities where the employee could have possibly gotten a cheaper lawyer or a better settlement.
It's true. Due to the advent of generics, etc. It's really just not profitable to actually research new medicines. It's also insanely difficult. You could very easily spend all your money and not come up with anything. As people do everything possible to get drugs for less money from companies other than those who actually invented the drug, it should be no surprise that it's not worth it to do actual research. It should also be no surprise that they put a lot more effort into researching drugs like viagra, which rich people buy, than drugs for diseases that poor people get. That's why Bill Gates is needed.
Any health care system must be able to do two things. It has to have a system of deciding how much care to give, and who to give it to. It must also generate enough money to pay the cost of the care, and have enough profit to adequately fund further medical research to raise the level of care that is given.
Kilarney, your argument goes both ways. Shelf-stockers, greeters etc. are also incredibly easy jobs for which practically everybody has the qualifications and therefore are popular with the untrained, teenagers, elderly and so on.
Of course it doesn't cover you when you move on to another job, but it covers you when you are employed. She was employed at the time the accident happened. Because of the accident she is not capable of working any more and now we are back at the Veterans argument I made before.
In any company of that size, there are bound to be upset employees. What is more indicative of satisfaction is how long employees stay with the company, and how many want to work there. Wal-Mart has no problem filling positions. They do, however, have a horrendous turnover rate. But doesn't that mean that they system is working? If employees don't like working there, they don't seem to have a problem leaving.
As it stands, Forbes has rated Wal-Mart one of the top 100 companies to work for. You also have to figure that a lot of employees are students, etc who aren't looking at this as long-term employment.
kilarney, don't you think Forbes would judge jobs on the management levels rather than the shelf-stocker/cashier/greeter level?
The rating was meant to include all employees, not just management. The problem, though, is that only mangers (from all sorts of companies) were polled. Front-line workers were not polled. So really the survey says that mangers rate Wal-Mart as one of the top 100 companies for a given employee to work at. The question is really whether or not managers know what's important to front-line employees.
The bottom line for me is that I'm a capitalist. Unions are good in theory, but I've also seen a lot of damage and inefficiency caused by unions. The problem is that a lot of unions become self-feeding monsters that care more about their own growth than the welfare of the employees.
A healthy company is a good company. Wal-Mart is entitled to be healthy. That's what will keep them around to provide jobs. Assuming that nobody is forced to work there, market forces should force Wal-Mart to provide pay and benefits that are acceptable to the work force.
Let me ask you this... Do these retail jobs suck? Yes. But, as an adult, if your only qualifications are to work at Wal-Mart, you've obviously made some very poor choices in your life. What's so bad about rewarding those who make good choices? Should all jobs be the same? Shouldn't those who work hard and make good decisions enjoy better jobs and more benefits?
Comments
I just don't see how this insurance situation is different from any other company. Wal-Mart paid money. The women got a settlement. Wal-Mart wants to recover what they spent. From what little I know, it seems like this woman's problem is that her settlement was entirely inadequate.
But kudos to Wal-Mart for keeping health care costs as affordable as possible. It helps the company and the employees.
My head spins anytime someone is against capitalism. The bottom line is that Wal-Mart came up with a system that the consumers want. If someone comes up with something better, Wal-Mart will fail. That's progress, and that's good for the economy. The only problem I see is if Wal-Mart becomes a monopoly. So far, I have not seen that happen.
Let me just give a quick example from my area. There are two towns that Wal-Mart wanted to go into. Town A had always been prosperous (from a rural standpoint). Town B was always the runner up. Wal-Mart wanted to go into Town A. Town A didn't want them. Wal-Mart went into Town B - 20 miles down the road. Town A's downtown has suffered, and has yet to recover. Town B's downtown is THRIVING. When we go to Wal-Mart we also stop in town and get a bite to eat, go to the bookstore, etc. (This is a rural area where people drive upwards of 1 hour to go to Wal-Mart.) We NEVER would have spent money in the downtown of Town B until Wal-Mart came along. And who is downtown? Small, independent businesses. They are thriving like never before. Sure, the Five and Dime can no longer make it, but that's okay. As long as the overall picture is much better, how can you complain?
I suppose that you could argue that the overall impact is not good, because Town A is suffering. I can tell you, though, that the negative side is nowhere near as much as the positive side for Town B. So overall, businesses have benefited.
If you don't think that an employer has responsibility for the well-being and health of it's employees, even if their condition prohibits them from working for you any more, you are in my opinion nuts.
In the same manner you would have to say that the U.S. Army or the U.S. Government does not have any responsibility for it's veterans with blown off limbs.
Kinda like this: Well, if they didn't read and understand the small print, then they deserve nothing. They have the same negotiating power as Wal-Mart does, don't they?
If they don't have that kind of negotiating power and they're too weak to fight back, screw 'em. They're getting in the way of capitalist progress. All Hail the Wal-Mart!
Later, you start thinking about what insurance you actually have. You start looking for insurance on your own. BTW, have you ever actually done this? Looked for insurance on your own? It's damned expensive. So you stick with what Wal-Mart gave you and hope you don't get sick.
But I guess this is the difference between growing up in a capitalist country and social market economy country.
It should be the responsibility of the individual to read the benefits and figure out what is best for them. I understand that no one wants to read all that stuff or the fine print, but regardless it falls on their responsibility. For most jobs, they require you to work 90 days before being eligible for medical benefits. Before those 90 days, HR normally sends the employee a packet in the mail about the medical benefits with all the different options to choose from. The employee then has around 30 days to enroll in whatever benefits are available.
Working for the government, we're lucky enough that we have a Health Insurance Information Fair a month before open enrollment is open. We have representatives come from all the available insurances offered through our work so we can get benefits information and get questions answered.
Seems more like a problem with the game than the players.
As to Walmart and fake school lists, combining ignorance with an appeal to authority has always been a solid moneymaker. That's why cigarette ads back in the 30s used pictures of doctors in them. One might argue that it's not especially ethical, but Walmart is a publicly held company. Most people buy stock to make a buck, and don't really care about company policy otherwise, since they'll simply sell as soon as the stock is no longer making money. As such, their support of a company depends almost entirely on its ability to maximize profit, with a preference for the short-term. This has a way of shaping how a company does business.
Right now we solve this problem by giving out the available health care supply to people based mostly on money. The disadvantage of this system is that some people without money, sadly, will not receive care. The advantage is that in the long run more money is put into health care research, and we will be able to give more care to more people over time.
Bad things happen, and they can't always be fixed perfectly every time. Welcome to life. Get used to it.
You have five medicines.
a) You give all five medicines to poor people. You get $0. The pharmaceutical company, the scientists in the drug lab, the hospital, the doctors, the nurses, etc. all lose money.
b) You give all five medicines to rich people. You get rich people money. The company, the scientists in the drug lab, the hospital, the doctors, the nurses, etc. all get paid. The pharmaceutical company uses some of the money they get to do research on producing existing medicines more cheaply and also towards researching new medicines.
The reason that medicine costs so much money is because it takes hundreds of millions of dollars to invent them. The pharmaceutical companies aren't excessively greedy taking all your money for their fat wallets. Their excessively greedy because they need stupid amounts of money to be profitable considering how much research costs.
@Rym: Not everybody is in need of such special attention, but yes it can work. European medical systems do just that. What do you think nursing homes are for? You also got them in america.
To advance to Scott: Social medicine does work as proven by pretty much every western country except the United States. The problems you counted up with not enough organs, testing apparatus etc. ALSO happen in the U.S. except that in addition to that, people get shoved out the door for not having the money to pay for it.
I think the core of why America is such a fucked up country in my view is that many things that directly influence the general well-being of people, such as health care or as a minor example school lunches, are either run by or heavily influenced by for-profit organizations who only seek cheapest and therefore most rudimentary solutions. Guess how many more people could be treated or receive better treatment if you cut out HMOs and have the profits the HMOs reap used as additional funding while every customer would still pay the same fees?
This program has given thousands upon thousands of employees health care. That's a good thing.
This is a sad story, no doubt. However, keep in mind, this woman will be able to collect SSDI, Medicaid, etc. It's not like she's being left high and dry.
The other dirty little secret here is that minimum wage jobs are incredibly easy to find. A shelf-stocker at Wal-Mart can easily find work somewhere else. Yet Wal-Mart has no trouble finding employees and retaining them. Shouldn't you be asking yourself why this is the case? Apparently, it's not a bad place to work. Good luck getting health insurance if you work at Billy-Joe's Kwick Stop.
I'm not saying that Wal-Mart's insurance is that good. I personally think it sucks. Nonetheless, I suspect it's better than average for this segment of the work force. Wal-Mart shouldn't be vilified if that's the case.
I agree with kilarney on this matter. It is a sad what happened, however there could be other possibilities where the employee could have possibly gotten a cheaper lawyer or a better settlement.
Any health care system must be able to do two things. It has to have a system of deciding how much care to give, and who to give it to. It must also generate enough money to pay the cost of the care, and have enough profit to adequately fund further medical research to raise the level of care that is given.
Of course it doesn't cover you when you move on to another job, but it covers you when you are employed. She was employed at the time the accident happened. Because of the accident she is not capable of working any more and now we are back at the Veterans argument I made before.
As it stands, Forbes has rated Wal-Mart one of the top 100 companies to work for. You also have to figure that a lot of employees are students, etc who aren't looking at this as long-term employment.
The bottom line for me is that I'm a capitalist. Unions are good in theory, but I've also seen a lot of damage and inefficiency caused by unions. The problem is that a lot of unions become self-feeding monsters that care more about their own growth than the welfare of the employees.
A healthy company is a good company. Wal-Mart is entitled to be healthy. That's what will keep them around to provide jobs. Assuming that nobody is forced to work there, market forces should force Wal-Mart to provide pay and benefits that are acceptable to the work force.
Let me ask you this... Do these retail jobs suck? Yes. But, as an adult, if your only qualifications are to work at Wal-Mart, you've obviously made some very poor choices in your life. What's so bad about rewarding those who make good choices? Should all jobs be the same? Shouldn't those who work hard and make good decisions enjoy better jobs and more benefits?