there are many things about the south I like. But like all states, the people here have their own odd stupid things they like to do >_>Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
hmm chicken
Printable View
there are many things about the south I like. But like all states, the people here have their own odd stupid things they like to do >_>Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
hmm chicken
I don't see the problem with this suit.
She got paid to cover her injuries. Her injuries were already being covered, to avoid double pay, one of the two payments was removed.
If your argument is she needs more money to cover her injuries, then fine, either the health insurance or the settlement should have been larger. I don't see anything even morally wrong with what they did though.
She's can't afford her medical payments now, or has to be downgraded from the gist of the article. Ok, well she should have had better health insurance. She had poor health insurance, so her care is poor.
It was not her fault that she got in the accident? Then the settlement should have covered more.
If the settlement was actually intended to be an addition to her insurance, then the law should word it like that. The jury was awarding her money to pay for the medical costs according to the current laws. If you don't like that, the laws need to be fought.
-----------------
I don't have health insurance because I take far better care of myself than the average person, and considering profit and overhead, its a losing system for me to be in. Fuck that.
Cheep?
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/a...1&d=1198072535Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
THIS. Insurance is not some fucking pay out lotto, its supposedly to cover your expenses and damages when you are injured and need money for critical care, family expenses that would otherwise shatter a limited income/support structure. Thats the whole point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schlep
The sad part is the family is going to need that money in the longterm. Caring for a brain damaged/disabled adult for the rest of their lives is a HUGE burden. Unless some miracle comes along they better hope their insurance doesn't give them shit about it (it would be in their best interest to deny coverage, as she's just grand a day or more loss, economicly) or they could they will have to abandon the patient as a ward of the state, which will pass all expenses to the state (thats what we do in Texas, since everyone here gets critical care regardless of ability to pay, but you have to be a pauper first and exhaust all other methods of payment)).
I don't see why people are focusing on Walmart in this thread. This is more of an insurance issue.
I always thought insurance was retarded. Insurance is a buisness. Their goal is to make money. It would be backwards if a buisness tried to run any other way.
So here's me, Joe Little Guy who has no say in the insurance company's policies, rules, or practices, depending on this company to give me money and not try and fuck me over.
And here's the insurance company who cares nothing about me and is only bound to do for me what the contract says they have to do. Do they take the extra effort to make my life easy and take from their shareholder's pockets, or do they do their damdest to make money like a buisness should?
So I'm not surprised when people with coverage get the shaft.
I dunno. Insurance of any kind seems to me like paying taxes to a government that I have no representation in.
All of this insurance crap should just fall under our real government. We already pay them to look out for us anyway. Their whole reason for being is to look out for us. Take existing insurance payments and send it to the govt. as taxes and let them be our security net. At least they won't be trying to maximize profits when they should be pulling our asses out of the fire.
Our government would be horribly inefficient in handling health insurance. You should see Medicare, it is so easy to cheat them for money that people are now screaming for some kind of reform/practice to prevent fraulent charges.
It wouldn't be impossible and I think that some form of middle-ground is the best way to handle health care in this country. The government should hand out some form of stipend to every person/family in the country (get the money by charging a tax every year or something), have those people choose whether their money is better spent on government health insurance (which needs a dire upgrade but it can be done) or a private health care company.
Sort of like the No Child Left Behind Act, except with health care and in need of some major tweaking before actually working.
It's an example of just how soulless Wal-mart can be. Was it their right to go after that money? Sure, but practically no company ever does (that point was made in the article) under those circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheebs
I think most companies wouldn't sue because of bad publicity, not necessarily out of some humanitarian goal (although the end result amounts to the same thing). Walmart clearly subscribe to the notion there is no such thing as bad publicity, and to get a few bucks back so they can slash prices on toilet paper that disintegrate upon contact with air.