Keith Olbermann Continues Feud Against Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart Responds

Last Wednesday, Keith Olbermann introduced the story of Debbie Shank, a 52-year old former Wal-Mart employee and mother of a soldier killed in Iraq who suffered serious brain damage after getting hit by a truck and was subsequently sued by Wal-Mart to recover $470,000 in medical expenses (Shank had won a substantial settlement from the trucking company and, after legal fees, took home $417,000). Olbermann, in the clip seen below, declared Wal-Mart his "Worst Person in the World" and has subsequently named Wal-Mart to his "Worst Persons" list every night since.

Women's Wear Daily/Memo Pad's Stephanie D. Smith reports today that Wal-Mart's corporate communications director, Daphne Moore, has responded with a statement:

"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.

Comments

[jdenham]

Those who are supporting Walmart might want ot look at who is paying for her healthcare now. The American taxpayer is now paying the bill for Debbie Shank's healthcare. The money now comes out of your tax dollar since she now falls under Medicare. But lets not blame Walmart.

[Cappy]

"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..."

So they just wiped out all the money she had. Well, I guess that's OK.

[deminmo]

Due to cuts in the Medicaid program in Missouri, it is harder
to get on the program. And the plan only pays for limited stays
in the hospital. My brother, who was disabled and on Medicaid
in Missouri, was told a stay in the hospital for pneumonia had to
be cut short, and he would have to take antibiotics at home. He
died two weeks later. No one sued the hospital. No one sued
Medicaid. I hope Debbie gets good care in her situation. The
biggest problems aren't the social service programs, it's how
money is used in those programs, and the abuses of those
programs. Don't destroy them, take them apart and make them
work better.

[leftbehind2000]

Thank you, Governor Matt Blunt. One can only hope that the heartless bastard has the opportunity one day to walk in the shoes of those in need.

[marignymitch]

Wal-Mart has confused what is legal with what is right by citing the court's support of its Dickensonian position. The law was on Ebenezer Scrooge's side too.

While it has saved itself a few hundred thousand dollars, a figure that Wal-Mark clears every few seconds or so, it has increased the suffering of Debbie Shank, damaged itself morally and further damaged its reputation, which wasn't that hot to begin with. I bet its losses--monetarily and in the court of public opinion--outweigh it profits on this matter.

Keep up the good work, Mr Obermann.

[marsgeek]

Could the exec a WalMart possibly be this dense?

Get together at headquarters and raise the money and send this family an F-ing check.
We know that there are rule, but there are cases where you bend or over look the rules to help someone in extraordinary need.

Is this what 30 plus year of trickle down and Supply-side dogma has brought us.
Maybe we can put together something here to help these poor folks.
I am just disgusted with anyone who uses the rules are rules argument to ignore the need of these folks.

[WLA]

Further back in the thread, it was mentioned that Bank of America was accpeting donations for the Shank Family. I'll be going to a B of A sometime this week.

[rinpochet]

They didn't have to sue. They have a fund that could be used. They could also write it off. The people running the company now are low life, unlike Sam Walton the founder of the company.

People would like to boycott WalMart but the sad reality is that there are so many people on the brink who can only afford to shop at WalMart. I am fortunate in that I have a choice. Many don't and thus unwillingly support our huge trade deficit with China, member of the WTO, thanks to Bill Clinton.

[maxiemom]

Herbert Hoover, of all people, spoke one of my very favorite presidential quotes: "the problem with capitalism is capitalists." This is a prime example of the mentality to which he referred.

The response by Walmart's representative is despicable, but even more so because that woman has no clue just how immoral what she's saying really is. It's like she's been infected by s severe lack of humanity, corporate America style. As a victim of that system myself, I can tell you it's much more widespread and insidious than you think. Check the fine print on your own policies, especially when it comes to long term disability insurance. You'd be surprised what they can get away with. You may very well not get what you've been paying for, because their rules are what THEY decide. You may be disabled, but good luck collecting if they don't want to pay. It's all there in the fine print of your policy, just like it was in hers. Disgusting, isn't it? Insurance companies are some of the WORST corporate abusers of all.

Keep it up, Keith. Walmart should make this right, regardless of the court's decision. Walmart never should have gone after her in the first place. They claim to be 'good neighbors', but how obscene can one company be?

[Enid]

Martha Stewart should come to the rescue?

[krifos]

Martha went to jail because she tried to save $25,000. She ain't going to rescue anyone.

[Xander]

Nobody is claiming that Wal-Mart did anything "wrong". What people are claiming (rightly so) is that Wal-Mart's health plan policy STINKS and that a company worth that much money should have been more understanding in this one instance. Christ, they're asking for more money back than these people got from their settlement.

[MNmommy]

I hate Wal-Mart for all kinds of reasons.

That said, Keith is wrong on this one. If the plan has a subrogation clause, it had a responsibility to go after the settlement money. You all need to look elsewhere for the blame on this one - like the lack of Universal Heath Care though even with that - if there are subrogation clauses there could be the same outcome.

It's a tragic story - but it is, what it is.

http://www.erisaontheweb.com/cat-erisa-subrogation.html

[dhfsfc]

Wal-Mart Troll! There is NO OBLIGATION to enforce the clause. It is a right, not an obligation.

[MNmommy]

I'm not a Wal-Mart troll. I refuse to shop there as stated above.

What I am though, is a previous Benefits Manager - so I am well versed in medical plans.

[Ping]

Wrong. The problem with Walmart is that they are self insured. Now that Mrs Shanks is not a Walmart employee, the corporation expects the government/Medicare to take care of her. Health insurance companies very rarely enforce the subrogation clause because of the negative publicity it generates. Walmart once again proves that is run by a bunch of MONEY GRUBBING WHORES.

[MNmommy]

Sorry - whether they are self insured or not only effects ERISA. It doesn't make subrogation wrong or money grubbing. If it were Target (who is very generous in all things charitable) would you feel differently? Healthcare has skyrocketed - it is, what it is.

http://tinyurl.com/2dzb2h

[dhfsfc]

God, I hope you suffer a terrible tragedy -- become a vegetable, lose your son or daughter, have to get divorced to make ends meet -- and then the rest of us can shrug and say "Well, it's a tragic story, but WHO CARES!

[MNmommy]

Wrong.

I understand medical plans, how they are written and why they are written that way.

If you believe for one.single.minute. that this doesn't go on every.single.day. you are the one to be pitied.

We need Universal Health Care. Better yet, single-payer health care.

[glesslib]

I think the lady is just trying to explain how the system works. I doubt she designed the system. My son, who is a wonderful stay at home dad, and doesn't agree with the subrogation clause at all, explained it all to me the other night.

That said, Walmart is not required by law to go after this family. The company just sucks.

[mostlybluedot]

It is a tragic case. But I don't see that Wal-Mart did anything wrong. If anybody did. it was the lawyers who did not sue for enough to pay back the insurance company. surely they knew or should have known that you cannot recover on these things without paying off the insurance? She should have sued for something more than medical bills. One other thing: what this person really needed was disability insurance or maybe long term care insurance. If she had not been disabled, she would have returned to work, case closed. If she had disability insurance, case closed as well. ( Isn't there some govenment disability?) It is absolutely not right to assume that the company must pay these things or that the insurance company should. The clause in the insurance policy is typical and serves a purpose: you can't rip off the employee's plan to cover what you did not have - namely disability in this case. .

[Ping]

Walmart is self insured.

[leftbehind2000]

Walmart is self ish.

[dhfsfc]

I have a feeling that Wal-Mart is going to rue the day they did this. And if you really are a Wal-Mart stock-holder, do you think that Wal-Mart is going to lose more, or less, than the $700,000 in insurance money they recovered in LOST BUSINESS.

You can call Olbermann a rant, but he is hopefully taking money out of Wal-Mart's pocket, and yours! This is a STUPID business move!

[turkeyfish]

This post exemplifies the problem. You can't understand if people expect a little more from companies than simply existing to make a profit regardless of the social and environmental costs.

Corporations should be expected to play a more positive role in society than simply making money. That in an of itself is not a social, political, or moral virtue. It thats all there is to it why don't we simply legalize stealing? This kind of behavior by Walmart simply does not meet any kind of moral or social benefits test and for this reason I have decided to suspend as much buying at Walmart as I possibly can until this point is made clear for all to see.

People can bypass corporations and ask their government to distribute goods a lot more efficiently and effectively, by cutting out the large "middle man" costs that businesses like to call "profits". We haven't done it up to now as private business is seen, often times illogically, as a more efficient way of distribution of natural resources. This will become clearer to many as human demand for goods confronts a finite supply and as inflation producing measures by the Fed increase the cost of everything.

[lovethesinner]

There's a part in the film "The Corporation" where they do a psychological profile of corporations as if they were an individual person. The profile determined they were basically "psychopaths" (unable to tell right from wrong). Considering that U.S. law has given corporations all the same rights of a individual, shouldn't we be arresting and trying them in court for all their various "personal" crimes? Or, is that too much to ask of people who have to be "democratically" elected?

Obama-Webb '08

[WLA]

Now that's interesting.

[leftbehind2000]

Great, great movie. Should be mandatory viewing for every American. Hell, for everyone. Period.

[alaintex]

Sounds like proof that some people can't tell the difference between film and real life.

[mlaiuppa]

Let them pay taxes like an individual person too. *I* don't get tax incentives like Big Oil does or subsidies or any of the other perks. Let the CEOs be held accountable. They should have some accountablity to balance the obscene salaries and bonuses they make.

[RibTop]

Sorry. Most of you have it very wrong.

Wal-Mart is a corporation. They have people like me to listen to. We are called stockholders.
What they did was right. If you disagree and want to shop elswhere...please park the buggy and walk away.

Why is it that the ones with money are always the bad ones, and the those with none are all Mother Teresa's?

Olbermann is only a rant (with a small r)

[BOfever]

The ones with the money are bad because they don't give everything to poor people . . . a staple of liberalism.

[LeBelAge]

The ones without money, put who foolishly believe they will become one of the wealthy elite one day, therefore support corporations at the expense of their workers, the environment, and hide their crimes by blaming the poor and liberals is a staple of conservatism.

[alaintex]

They you're bad, because there are people poorer than you and you haven't given everything to poor people.

Bad liberal.

[nightprowler]

and why do we pay for insurance? so you stockholders can steal our money

[blytzd]

Have not shopped at Wal Mart for years though I have picked up plenty of their blue bags littering the streets.

[LeBelAge]

Citizenship trumps stockholders in a democracy. Its time you take a refresher course in being a good American.

[leftbehind2000]

Duh. The poster said he/she is a Walmart stockholder. That makes the possibility of being a "good American" extremely unlikely.

[Gregorio]

So, if I no longer buy anything at Wal-Mart until they pay up, that makes you stock holders happy? I suggest everyone who things Wal-Mart stockholders have a moral obligation to give its employees DECENT wages, hours, retirement, health, disability and life insurance STOP SHOPPING AT WAL-MART. PERIOD. Walk away, just at the corporate stock holder suggests. NEVER SHOP AT WAL-MART again until the STOCKHOLDERS get some enlightenment. And, oh yes, liberalism is all about worker's right to organize, get benefits from their labor, and not be exploited so STOCKHOLDERS can stick some extra cool cash in their pockets from work they didn't do themselves. I have no sympathy for you WAL-MART STOCKHODERS, for the corporate types who think its OK to cheat their workers at every level, and no sympathy especially for those of us out there who cannot vote with their dollars. GO SHOP ANYWHERE BUT WAL-MART until the stockholder shout out WE GIVE!!! Keith is completely right on this one. GO KEITH. BOYCOTT WAL-MART NOW!!!

[Chris]

LEt's see Wal Mart follows the law and huffsters are outraged. Please someone explain the logic.

The fact that her son died in Iraq while tragic and is not part of this issue.

If you have beef with the law then you should be after the lawmakers not for the people and companies that follow the laws.

[jdmccl]

Sounds good to blame the law but the problem is the high priced lawyers who try to pervert the law and get a judgment based upon a clause that in effect makes Wal-Mart not pay for what is needed to help this person. Sure her son died too and it is relevant because if this was a corner grocery store, mom and pop would not be stealing the money because they have to deal with the backlash of the patrons. Wal-Mart lawyers just sit in the seventh circle of hell and have no problem going home and sleeping at night. I must say this is the first time I agree with the worst person selection.

[timothe]

Conservatives couldn't agree with you more. Trial lawyers are litigating this country into a mess and it's costing everyone because Walmart's legal fees are paid for by their customers along with every other corporation.

What do you suggest we do?

[Chris]

So you are sayign if this lady did not have children or her child was still alive then you woudl not have a problem with this?

Again you and most posters her do not understand the long term ramifications of not recovering these monies. The company's premiums would have shot through the roof and Wal Mart si the seocnd largest employer in the US.

[foreffectivegovernment]

Wal-Mart is not our enemy. At the risk of sounding like Reverend Wright, the Government is. I also want change but I think a doer, rather than a talker can get it done.

[nightprowler]

wal mart is the enemy, they import poisned crap from china and cancel the insurance of employees who get hurt you go work for them and get what u deserve

[WLA]

Gee, wonder who you think that would be.

[Ping]

There is such a thing as "Corporate Citizenship". They wanna do business here they gotta be more than just "legal".

[thatvisionthing]

WW OO RR SS TT !! ...PP EE RR SS OO NN SS !! ...II NN - TT HH EE

WWWW OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO RRRR R LLLLLLLLLL­LDDDDDDDD!­!!

(I love to sing along)

[HopeandChange]

Who Olberjerk? You're probably right.

[thatvisionthing]

No, my man Olbermann. You're probably a jerk.