As heartbreaking as this story is, and it is devestatingly so, this woman chose to work for Wal-Mart and chose to enter into this health insurance agreement. The family even readily admits that they rightfully owe the money, they simply don't think that -- under their specific circumstances -- they should have to pay it.
Now, it's a massive PR blunder on the part of Wal-Mart to not help this woman out, but these are the terms to which she agreed. If they make an exception for every extraordinary set of circumstances, everyone's rates go up. Who's job is it to judge when something is extraordinary enough, or should insurance companies just dole out free money indefinitely?
I understand and agree that something needs to be done about health care in this country, but this unsophisticated "Big Box Store Bad!" argument doesn't entirely hold water with me. Had she not been awarded the million bucks, and had her lawyers not taken half of that, the insurance company would have covered her exceptional medical bills without contest. Which is a far better deal than most working in retail get in this country.
Why is no one up in arms about the lawyers charging nearly $500,000, and not noticing the fine print of this woman's insurance plan? It seems to me the lawyers should have gone for a much larger settlement, understanding -- as they should have, as they're lawyers and they're paid (in this case handsomely) to notice such things -- that Blue Cross/Blue Shield (not Wal-Mart, incidentally) would want to be reimbursed for the money they paid out.
Comments
You are all a bunch of Williamsburg hipster bitches. Go get some coke with daddy's paycheck and smoke it kthx.
Posted by: Angie | March 27, 2008 04:34 PM
Well said, where were you when all of this was going down? The real crime is in the profit of the lawyers...it's discusting what they profit.
Posted by: Molly | March 26, 2008 05:04 PM
As heartbreaking as this story is, and it is devestatingly so, this woman chose to work for Wal-Mart and chose to enter into this health insurance agreement. The family even readily admits that they rightfully owe the money, they simply don't think that -- under their specific circumstances -- they should have to pay it.
Now, it's a massive PR blunder on the part of Wal-Mart to not help this woman out, but these are the terms to which she agreed. If they make an exception for every extraordinary set of circumstances, everyone's rates go up. Who's job is it to judge when something is extraordinary enough, or should insurance companies just dole out free money indefinitely?
I understand and agree that something needs to be done about health care in this country, but this unsophisticated "Big Box Store Bad!" argument doesn't entirely hold water with me. Had she not been awarded the million bucks, and had her lawyers not taken half of that, the insurance company would have covered her exceptional medical bills without contest. Which is a far better deal than most working in retail get in this country.
Why is no one up in arms about the lawyers charging nearly $500,000, and not noticing the fine print of this woman's insurance plan? It seems to me the lawyers should have gone for a much larger settlement, understanding -- as they should have, as they're lawyers and they're paid (in this case handsomely) to notice such things -- that Blue Cross/Blue Shield (not Wal-Mart, incidentally) would want to be reimbursed for the money they paid out.
Posted by: Devil's Advocate | March 26, 2008 11:35 AM