Responding to Keith Olbermann's call to make right on their terrible mistreatment of their former employee, Debbie Shank, Wal-Mart released the following statement, as reported on The Huffington Post
"This is a very sad case and we understand that people will naturally have an emotional and sympathetic reaction. While the Shank case involves a tragic situation, the reality is that the health plan is required to protect its assets so that it can pay the future claims of other associates and their family members. These plans are funded by associate premiums and company contributions. Any money recovered is returned to the health plan, not to the business. This is done out of fairness to everyone who contributes to and benefits from the plan. The Supreme Court recently declined to hear an appeal of the case, which concludes all litigation. While Wal-Mart's benefit plan was entitled to more than the amount that remained in the Shank trust, the plan only recovered the funds remaining in that trust," which according to reports amounted to about $277,000.
It looks like Olbermann will continue to hammer Wal-Mart. This is the same old tired line about protecting their health care plan for everyone. It does not excuse Wal-Mart's lack of compassion and decency in this case.
Posted by Taylor - April 1, 2008 01:45 PM - In The News
I can not believe that Walmart can do this to this poor family. They sure do not need the money and this family needs it to take care of this poor women. How can they sleep at night. I for one will not be shopping at their stores again.
Posted by linda - April 1, 2008 04:03 PM
I think Wal-Mart made a good gesture by dropping the case against the Shank family, but I also feel that the coverage of this story was extremely biased and did not accurately portray why Wal-Mart was trying to recoup this money. First of all, I don't particularly care for Wal-Mart and I never shop at their stores, but I'm one of those people who like to get both sides of the argument.
I used to work for a Health Insurance company and we would recoup money we paid previously if the patient won a suit. Usually the judge orders the liable party to pay for the medical expenses, and if the insurance company already paid, they have the right to get the money back (they usually take it back from the Hospital though, not the patient directly). This might seem unfair, but if the insurance companies did not recoup this money, they would eventually have to raise the premium prices of all their members even more to make up for the money they paid that another party was obliged to pay by law. Now $400,000 is not so much for Wal-Mart, but if they were not allowed to recoup any money after a lawsuit, the premiums for Wal-Mart employees would rise even more.
In this instance where Mrs. Shank needs to have constant and expensive medical care (which is usually not covered under normal health plans), the money that would have been recouped is probably going to go to her medical treatment. However most of these cases involve injuries that are less complicated, like broken bones, which have an end to the medical treatment. In these instances I feel that the Insurance Company or Employer should be reimbursed for a charge they are not liable for, which in the long run helps keep the cost of premiums as low as they can be (I know they are rising everywhere). After all, the judge said that part of the money needs to go to paying the medical bills, not for a new car or house for the plaintiff.
Posted by Greg - April 2, 2008 05:49 AM
Let's be really brutally honest about this - the ONLY reason wal-mart backpedaled was because they were getting skewered on EVERY cable network news and Network news reports, in addition to the internet. They would not have done this, otherwise.
Let's also be really honest about another fact - absolutely NO MEMBER of the Walton family (Sam's Kids), stepped up to offer to help this woman and her family. It's really shameful. Collectively they are worth what....over $30 Billion?
Wal Mart, and the Walton family are PATHETIC excuses for corporate citizens, and take no interest in their employee's well being. They can issue are the PR to the contrary, but let's be really honest - their true colors came through in this instance.
Lee Scott, and other senior executives need to have bad things happen in their lives, maybe then it will hit home. Perhaps they will then develop some sort, ANY level of empathy. Until that happens however, they will remain truly useless examples of human beings. I wonder how their spouses feel about this? Are they are embarrassed by Wal Mart and the Walton Family as the rest of America at this time?
Posted by Steve - April 2, 2008 04:23 PM