Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Sam Walton

His legacy is that of avarice, greed, and a hollow soul.

Ok, read this first. If you would rather not read it, the long and short of it is, Wal-Mart is pursuing its rights in an insurance settlement. Against a severely brain damaged woman who has lost her son to the fighting in Iraq.

The money in question, which by all parties involved, rightly belongs to Wal-Mart, is 470 thousand dollars. Wal-Mart... reported net... NET!!! Sales of 90 BILLION dollars in the third QUARTER of 2007. Not the whole YEAR... but JUST THE THIRD FUCKING QUARTER OF 2007. Wal-Mart has OPTIONS. They can choose not to pursue legal action, which does not set a legal precedent one way or another. They can win, and then be gracious and DONATE the acquired funds.

Or they can leave a husband penniless when he is trying to care for his disabled wife while at the same time mourning for his dead son.


Are they so blinded to moderation and thoughtfulness that they cannot see that even though they can win this case, they'll lose?

Or is the big joke that since the average Wal-Mart shopper will never know about this, that they can afford to be mind-bendingly petty?

Why do I pay attention, any more? It's not going to get any better.


Rev said...

They have every right to get back the money they paid out to this woman.

Wal-Mart gave her money for her medical bills. She won a lawsuit the more than covered her bills. Wal-Mart wants their money back. It was all a well known part of their insurance plan.

Iraq has nothing to do with it, aside from people trying to garner more sympathy for the woman.

Oh no...she might have to downgrade to a "semi-private" room at her nursing home...'someday'

Subrogation is a bitch, but even Wal-Mart encourages their employees to stick with public assistance, rather than their shitty insurance.

Scooter said...

I never said that Wal-Mart was outside of its rights. However, there is what a person CAN do, and what a person OUGHT to do. It DOESN'T MATTER that Iraq has nothing to do with this, or that she won't be thrown out on the street. What MATTERS is PERCEPTION.

Ugh, part of the problem is giving entities with the express purpose of acquiring capital the same rights as a natural person...

Rev said...

It DOESN'T MATTER that Iraq has nothing to do with it?

Why the fuck did you bother to include it in your post then?

So...capitalist entities shouldn't be given the rights of the rest of the population......

Fight the power, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan

Drunken Chud said...

the money is technically wal-mart's. and aside from that, a judge already ruled they won't be getting the 470k, they will only be entitled to what is left in the trust. that being said, she's on medicaid. the husband will not be left penniless because he divorced his wife so she would be entitled to more aid, which is considerable for nursing care. ASIDE from that, who settles for a million dollars? she had three kids and was left retarded. ON TOP OF THAT, it's not wal-mart's fault that they didn't read the insurance contract. HAD they done that, they would have settled for more so they could cover anything wal-mart may be wanting to recoup. this isn't a tale of a company being inhumane, it's a tale of ignorance and whining on the part of the family. had they never won the lawsuit, they'd have been in the same boat finance wise. i don't feel sorry for them, and i don't feel that wal-mart is acting like a bunch of big meanies.

the fact is wal-mart is the largest employer of manpower in the world. if they didn't pursue financial reperations for employee insurance when they were entitled, the shareholders would revolt. they simply can't let this go because then it opens them up to suits from every other employee they have recouped costs from. sometimes your inability to see a bigger picture is mind boggling. i've never had a bleeding heart simply because i understand the plight of the people, but WE ALL have the same plight. no one is special, we're all gonna die, time to move on and quit blaming everyone else.

Scooter said...


The facts are irrelevant to this case. It just LOOKS BAD. Moreover, Chud... choosing not to pursue a judgement has never ever, ever, Ever, EVER set a legal precedent... ever. GOING to court is what sets legal precedent.

The BIG PICTURE is that this reinforces the notion that Wal-Mart, the world's largest employer, is corrupt from top to bottom. Remember, a corporation is NOT immortal. If enough Senators and congressmen get the notion to revoke the Wal-Mart charter, well...

The best idea was to never try to get the money in the first place. No CNN article, No Keith Olbermann "worst people in the world segment", no lefty bloggers creaming themselves with a David-and-Goliath story that almost writes itself.

Can't you see my point? Wal-Mart was unable to see the forest for the trees, and a brain damaged woman is suffering because of it.