What a godawful story -- like something straight out of Charles Dickens... as retold by Franz Kafka. How did Michael Moore miss *this* one?? (Actually, Sicko was already completed by the time this first hit the news in a big way last year.) Last week the story was picked up by CNN (see below) & Keith Olbermeyer, among others. No surprise that WalmartWatch has been running a major campaign around this case (see below for more). ++++++++++++ For my money, the best piece I've seen was this column, published in the possibly legendary Niagara Falls Reporter. A word of warning though: Be sure you're in a safe place with no hot beverages when you're reading this. Seriously -- if you don't bounce off the ceiling (or collapse on the floor, as the case may be) you may not have a pulse. ____________________ April 1 2008 BOYCOTTING WAL-MART By Mike Hudson I've long detested Wal-Mart. More than any other institution... <snip> @@@... Anybody who wants a detailed straight-news account can check out: Accident Victims Face Grab for Legal Winnings Wal-Mart Paid Bills For Mrs. Shank, Then Sued for Money Back Wall Street Journal | November 20, 2007 http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119551952474798582.html @@@... WalmartWatch.com is a campaign of Five Stones and The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics http://walmartwatch.com Petition campaign & video of CNN report: http://action.walmartwatch.com/page/s/debbieshank Posted on Friday, March 28, 2008 We received this note from Debbie Shank?s son, Christopher. He writes to address some of the issues surrounding the case, and explain just how deeply Wal-Mart?s actions have impacted his family. __________________ First of all, let it be known that I?m Debbie Shank?s son, and not some random dude putting in his two cents. That being said, here?s the skinny? When we sued the trucking company, our lawyer told us that the only amount we could get off of the trucking company was what the truck was insured for... namely, a million dollars. As they were a small trucking company, they had no real net worth, and the amount we could sue them for was just for their insurance. When we received the settlement of 1 million, a third of that was paid out to the lawyers. After that, my dad was given a portion of that to make up for lost wages. We told Wal-Mart about all of this, and they basically said ?Okay.? and did nothing. We set up the rest, 417K, to take care of mom. We took care of her for three years on that, but when the statute of limitations was set to expire on Wal-Mart suing us, they literally had days left, they filed to sue us. Our lawyer told us at the time that they were only doing this to keep their options open, but Wal-Mart decided that they wanted to go after the settlement, as they say time and time again, ?out of fairness for everyone in the medical plan?. And so it went. The first ruling came August 31, 2006. At the time it was the worst thing that had happened. Six days later, my brother was killed. Dad said ?Fine. Whatever. They won.? We were without any will to keep going. Our lawyers said ?We?ll appeal. You just don?t worry about things. We?ll take care of all of it.? Appeal after appeal, Wal-Mart won them all. We finally appealed to the Supreme Court. Last week, they said they weren?t going to take our case. We lost. Now, Wal-Mart can?t take any more money than we had in the trust fund, so they get that. But, we still have 150K in outstanding medical bills. We have a fund set up that has accepted donations, but it quickly depletes due to bills. Even with government assistance, we still must pay anywhere from 500-1000 per month to keep mom in the nursing home, and that?s not counting bills she has from trips to the hospital (a couple weeks ago she was bleeding internally) . The outstanding bills we have, they can sue my father directly, so it?s looking like he may have to sell his home at least. My youngest brother, if he wants to have the money to go to college, will himself either have to take out thousands in loans or join the military. Dad has worked all his life, was set to retire in 5 years, but now it?s looking as if he?ll have to work longer and longer. Plus he has cancer to worry about. So, that?s the story. I have a feeling that somewhere along the lines, be it by Wal-Mart, the courts, the lawyers, the trucking company, or a combination of all, we?ve been taken advantage of. We could only sue for so much, we had to pay the lawyers, the courts decided to maintain the status quo, and Wal-Mart sold it?s soul. Whoever?s fault it is, we?re screwed. Plain and simple. http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/debbie_shanks_son_on_wal_mart_and_family @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ And lastly: Yet another good reason why we need SINGLE PAYER: a scathing analytical response to the WSJ article posted by a reader on the WalmartWatch.com website: Subrogation is not health insurance. It is a concealed alteration (subsitution, transference, displacement) of your legal rights under the color of health care. You have assigned your legal right of recovery and damages unsuspectingly to non health care providers. The ?policy? acted only as a ?loan product? ultimately for legal recovery for WalMart for which Shank paid an interest rate ?premium? to use. When not used, health care insurance premiums are not refunded to the policy holders under a ?risk versus claim? dollar calculation and estimate of payouts and profit system. This is the basic method of insurance companies making a profit from policy premiums. Collectively the premiums are pooled together (and invested) for the asset base to payout claims on health care expenditures. This is not what WalMart wants to do. In the Shanks case the premium was ultimately taken as profit only for the issuer (WalMart) without the intent of health care at all but rather the seizure of a legal right through ?subrogation? producing additional profits beyond the premium collections themselves and the asset base for health care payouts. You will note that the health care policy that WalMart suckered Shank into buying does not cover her health care costs now and that policy does not now even exist for her health care. She paid her premiums on a health care insurance policy from WalMart. Now WalMart has ?dumped? her onto the state for her health care costs. Recovery of health care cost from a ?health insurance policy? payout is beyound the scope of the advertised claim of ?health care insurance?. Financial recovery for the issuer and ?subrogation? remains only as a concealed legal concept. It is not about health care, medical practice, medications or doctor visits and hospitalization etc. Nobody would buy this ?health insurance? loan product if they knew and understood the reality of the scam. Therefore the concealment and defrauding of the Shanks and the subsequent embarrassment from and for the ?love of money? psychopaths at WalMart HQ in Bentonville. http://walmartwatch.com/blog/archives/news_roundup_deborah_shank_v_wal_mart ========================================================= *** [==> If you're not part of the solution... you're part of the problem <==] ***