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

Wal-mart is self insured, the associate health plan is funded by the associate's premiums(about 1/3) and the company's contribution(about 2/3). If as the end of the calendar year approaches the company sees that the healthplan is going to have a surplus, Walmart refunds money from the health plan in the form of premium "holidays", by either reducing the premiums or even paying fully for the remaining premiums. The surplus occurs because associate's are encouraged to examine medical bills for errors(which they are rewarded with cash if they retrieve money for the plan due to a billing mistake or overcharge). In addition the associates save money for the plan by using urgent care facilities instead of emergency rooms when appropriate, and buying generic medicines. The associates of Wal-Mart are entitled to recover this money as would any other insurance plan. Read the fine print of any insurance policy you have, you will find the language allowing the insurance company to recover money when it applies to an injury that the plan is paying out for.

Kraft Foods did this to me. Personal injury attorneys and corporations will not tell a severely injured victim that their lawyer will split the settlement money with their boss.
Congress created the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in l974 to protect employees from unscrupulous employers. Well, these unscrupulous employers and their lobbyists managed to sneak in two clauses a couple of weeks before the act was signed. Congress did not discuss these clauses before passing the act. The clauses turned out to invalidate the ERISA act and gave the employers complete immunity from all state laws, including insurance laws! Walmart is a member of a new lobby, the National Coalition on Benefits, which includes representatives from most large corporations. Right now, they are lobbying Congress to deny any insurance reforms that the candidates may introduce because they are afraid it might effect the protections they receive from ERISA. (proof that ERISA has backfired and is protecting the wrong people) ERISA is what gives Walmart and others the ability to do what they did to the Shanks. Walmart gave back their money because they don"t want to ruin any progress their lobbyists have made. 72% of Americans work for companies like this. 72% don"t know that the auto insurance benefits they buy are for their boss. The victim pays their own medical bills, regardless of what the no-fault laws are in your state. 72% of us will not be experiencing any of the health reforms the candidates promise.

I agree, shame on WalMart. The money was for the long-term care of Mrs. Shanks. Why didn't WalMart simply sue the truck company to recover its medical expenses?

Hmmmmmmmm. I am afraid (legally) you are wrong, Farmerette. And so is Olbermann (but what else is new)). According to the law, Walmart HAS to be reimbursed. It's really that simple. It seems the company, for public relations reasons I would assume, has dug into its own (albeit) deep pockets to help these unfortunate people. I agree that perhaps petitioning our legislators to clarify this is a wise thing. To scream "Walmart! Travesty! Injustice! Bock! Bock! Bock!" seems a tad shrill, reactive and just not educated.

Farmerette Are you a moron or do you just like to type yourself into carpel tunnel. Wal-Mart has already announced they are letting the family keep the money and they are revisiting the policy on the insurance. That is number 1. And number 2, assuming you are not a cradle to grave entitlement seeker and have a job, if you look at you health policy it quite possibly has a similar clause if not the same one. Most policies have that in them. And if you stop and think for a moment, assuming you have that ability and not just listen to 2 of the dumbest men on the planet Olbermann and Obama, you will realize the policy is so those looking to scam the insurance companies by collecting twice for the same injury. It is it logical? Of course it is. But what about feeling? Feeling aren't facts. That is nonsense started by the dope smoking, Birkenstock Granola eating non bathing crowd in the sixties

Keith is an idiot..

is that an excuse for his irrational rantings and positions?

The Shanks were NOT paid $470K by WALMART. The money went to the medical bills.

If the Shanks had not sued the trucking company, WALMART health insurance would still have paid $470K for the medical bills. So this getting the money for future policy holders is pure BS. Even if WALMART health insurance plan covers all medical bills, the fact still remains that her life is ruined. And the $1M ($417K) was for that. If you ask me, the problem in this whole thing is NOT WALMART but the lawyers who handled the Shanks vs. Trucking Co. If the settlement was to cover her legal fees ($583K), her medical fees ($470K) and her long term suffering ($xxx), then it should have been $583K+$470K+$xxx. Seems to me, the lawyer should be disbarred for charging $583K while NOT able to secure even the medical cost. I am more outraged by that.

It's obvious this will wreak havoc on the Walton family and their top execs. In deed, - Christmas is really going to suck for the executives and top shareholders.

After this major payout, - I wonder if Walmart is now questioning the risky move of eliminating most the small retailer and grocer competition in the U.S.

How dare the Shanks take advantage of the humanitarian good nature of Walmart? They should be ashamed of themselves - paying their mortgage, putting gas in their car, replacing worn out appliances.....Truly, we are in the gilded age.

These people should just feel lucky to have a job that doesn't pay their bills.

You don't quite understand. Her medical insurance was to cover her immediate medical expenses. The settlement was to cover punitive damages and long term care. Wal-Mart's healthcare plan does not provide for long term healthcare and ongoing therapy and loss of income.

Your statement/argument amounts to this: there are WORSE people than Hillary, so that absolves her. Unfortunately, that isn't a sound argument. And covering Bush every single night would get tired... Although to Olbermann's credit, he DOES cover Bush very frequently.

Dude your ignorance is only exceeded by your stupidity.. You probably belong to the Clinton quarter.. the 25% that think the clinton's can do no wrong.. (like the bush quarter). Hopefully they overlap and my worst fears (25+25 = 50% of the country is full of tards) are not true...

I believe that The Walmart Corporation is not alone in "following the money" trail. If you have a health plan with any health carrier or HMO (like Kaiser Permanente) they all have the same clause in their
agreement to provide coverage. They are not asking for the expens incurred in treating you. They are asking for any "legal recovery" received from the party who created the condition for which you were treated. The amount to collect "back" is limited to the cost of the medical treatment or less if the recovery from the party that caused the injury is less.
PS: I am not a fan of Walmart but we should get the facts before we "throw the first stone".