ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/19/2018 06:34 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  8.663 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/24/2007 08:58 PM ID: 66780 Permalink   

Wal-Mart Sues Brain-Damaged Employee; Wins Her Lawsuit Settlement Money

 

After Deborah Shank was left brain-damaged and in a wheelchair because of a collision with a semi truck, her family won a $700,000 settlement from the trucking company, reduced to about $400,000 after legal fees. Then Wal-Mart found out about it.

Shank, a former Wal-Mart employee, was sued by the company for $470,000 to reimburse its insurance company for Shank's medical bills. Now in a nursing home, Shank relies on Medicare and Social Security to pay for around-the-clock care.

Her husband, Jim, who works two jobs, said, "I don't understand why they need to do this. This girl needs the money more than they do." But Wal-Mart reserves the right to recoup medical expenses from money won by employees in lawsuits.

 
  Source: online.wsj.com  
    WebReporter: l´anglais Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  51 Comments
  
  Wal-Mart  
 
Give Wal-Mart a gift this Christmas.
Shop where your conscience dictates.
 
  by: ichi     11/24/2007 09:12 PM     
  Wow.  
 
That's pretty cold. I can understand their reason behind reclaiming the money, but I personally wouldn't do it.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   11/24/2007 09:13 PM     
  LC, AQ: is this the healthcare model you want?  
 
After all, the a private company's primary responsibility is towards it's shareholders. (Notice I didn't say employees)
 
  by: redstain   11/24/2007 09:29 PM     
  @redstain  
 
I don't particularly like this model either, but it's the way it is because there is too much government regulation already. The creation of the HMO system was the first step in this direction. I don't approve of this but I also don't approve of your Utopian ideal monopolized government "health care". The government can't do anything right; it certainly can't take care of you and you shouldn't expect it to.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   11/24/2007 09:48 PM     
  The  
 
government may not be perfect, but at least they make *some* attempt to take care of the people. I don't know if you've not studied history, but businesses were given pretty much free reign to do whatever they liked earlier in US history. I'll give you a hint -- the results weren't pretty.
 
  by: Velger   11/24/2007 09:55 PM     
  @Velger  
 
They also make *some* attempt to invade your privacy and increase state power. When you give the government the power to raise you from the cradle to the grave, you give it the power to control you. It's no coincidence that we have the most intrusive government we have ever had in our history because of it's expansion. What you need to understand is that it is not the government's job to take provide for people from cradle to grave, because in doing so they have to rob from other to pay for it. A perfect example is social security. We have an enormous entitlement system, that when the time comes for our generation to withdraw what we payed in to, there will be nothing left to withdraw. We need to stop raising people to believe they are entitled to being taken care of if they choose to stop producing for themselves.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   11/24/2007 10:07 PM     
  Rip em off blind!!  
 
This may sound childish, ignorant, petty, and whatever other name calling you wish to use.....but....it is reasons like this that I STEAL FROM THEM EVERY TIME I GET THE CHANCE!! WALMART TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF TRUSTED, HONEST ECONOMIES. Money at the cost of what??? WHITE TRASH STORE FOR WHITE TRASH PEOPLE IN A WHITE TRASH WORLD....YUCK
 
  by: homegrown420     11/24/2007 10:59 PM     
  health insurance  
 
I read somewhere that the problem with the present system is that they make the employer pay for health insurance which means that they just end up deducting it from what they pay their employees. Also, why is Wal Mart taking back the money? Isn't it the insurance company the one that had to pay out? Also, as for the topic of social medicine, dont you people realize that any time you give the government money to do something, they're always going to do a crappy job compared to the free market? If you strive for a society where everyone can afford their own health care, then you have freedom. If you strive for a society where the government pays for everyones health care, then welcome to bureaucratic hell. It's the difference between the original American way and 1984. Vote for RON PAUL 2008! Down with BIG BROTHER!
 
  by: Circuit_Monkey   11/24/2007 11:37 PM     
  @Circuit Monkey  
 
Your so-called free market efficiency is nothing more than insurance companies marking up health care an average of 30 percent just to line their pockets, and denying as much health care to their customers as possible, just to line their pockets even more. You call that efficient? I call it robbing a cancer patient.
 
  by: l´anglais     11/25/2007 12:11 AM     
  l'anglais=  
 
Well, it is natural that insurance companies are going to want to charge as much as they can, and pay out as little as they can. Competition should be able to counteract this, as long as monopolies are not formed. I think that consumers are given a lot less of an option by virtue of the fact that many drugs are illegal without a prescription. There's probably a lot of regulations that need to be lifted to free up the health market so things improve enough for everyone. The economy in general is also at the heart of the matter. Nothing in the economy is going to keep working for much longer without sound money for one thing. Hillary's socialist proposals are only going to speed up the impending collapse. I would have hated to be a cancer patient in a Soviet hospital when their empire collapsed. What would you have called that exactly?
 
  by: Circuit_Monkey   11/25/2007 12:28 AM     
  l'anglais  
 
Well, it is natural that insurance companies are going to want to charge as much as they can, and pay out as little as they can. Competition should be able to counteract this, as long as monopolies are not formed. I think that consumers are given a lot less of an option by virtue of the fact that many drugs are illegal without a prescription. There's probably a lot of regulations that need to be lifted to free up the health market so things improve enough for everyone. The economy in general is also at the heart of the matter. Nothing in the economy is going to keep working for much longer without sound money for one thing. Hillary's socialist proposals are only going to speed up the impending collapse. I would have hated to be a cancer patient in a Soviet hospital when their empire collapsed. What would you have called that exactly?
 
  by: Circuit_Monkey   11/25/2007 12:29 AM     
  @freemarket: name 1 freemarket humanitarian org  
 
In popular culture, movies, books, name one big corporate entity that 'works for the people'.

No One Believes Big Corp Does Anything But Turn A Quick Buck.

And CircuitMonkey believes RonPaul is an exponent of BigCorp? Very Educational.
 
  by: redstain   11/25/2007 01:19 AM     
  @redstain  
 
Would you be able to even post your bullshit on the internet if companies weren't making computer technology? Doubt it.
 
  by: Circuit_Monkey   11/25/2007 02:35 AM     
  @CM  
 
I'm not going to argue that everything needs to be socialized. I just think society would be better off if health care wasn't in the hands of people trying to make enormous profits. A government agency is not-for-profit and could pay wholesale costs for medications and care, so that pharmaceuticals and physicians don't lose money and the only group that's screwed are insurance companies (let's shed a tear in unison, shall we?).

Bottom line is, if Americans want their taxes to pay for healthcare for all, they'll support candidates who will do that -- and candidates will shrug off insurance company campaign donations because they know they'll win. I don't think most taxpayers would be saddled with any more of a charge than what they're currently paying for health insurance, anyway. So would you rather your monthly insurance premium go to line the pockets of the owners of a company that doesn't actually make anything or contribute useful products to society, or would you rather have that money help more Americans have access to quality healthcare?
 
  by: l´anglais     11/25/2007 03:13 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
I'd rather pocket the money. It belonged to me (the taxpayer) in the first place.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   11/25/2007 03:50 AM     
  @  
 
yeah, keep the money that belongs to you, pay the insurance company or the provider directly, and screw the middleman (the government) This works perfectly as long as the government buts out as much as possible, and as long as the government buts out of the economy in general, and all of society for that matter as much as possible. Once you study true freedom, then you will learn what the founding fathers risked their lives for. Freedom and prosperity for all, Ron Paul 2008!
 
  by: Circuit_Monkey   11/25/2007 05:23 AM     
  @CM  
 
Don't you understand that the insurance company IS the middleman? They don't provide your care, or your medication. All they do is collect as high a premium as the market will bear, and try to keep from paying any of it back when you need it.

It would be acceptable if they paid for whatever care you need, but they don't even do that. People have died because their insurance wouldn't pay for them to be cured.

A government agency acting in the role of a national "insurance company" would not have a profit motive -- in fact, they'd want to keep all costs not related to health care at a minimum in order to provide better care. Even better, you, as an American citizen and voter, would be able to petition the system for change if you saw fit to do so.

Let me ask you this -- if you had the choice between a for-profit health insurance provider and a non-profit, which would you choose? All things being equal, you'd choose the non-profit, which is only looking to pay its employees and cover adminstrative costs, rather than a company that's trying to earn a profit, because with a non-profit, you'd likely pay lower premiums, and the non-profit would be less likely to deny care to you in order to make money. Well, that's how national health care would work. You'd pay a premium in the form of your taxes, only the government is not a business and would only look to cover the costs of operating. I don't see where the problem is in such a system. Some of the world's largest economies have nationalized health care. It would also seem logical that if businesses did not have to shoulder as much of the health care burden, and their employees weren't afraid of the high cost of getting well, the economy would improve in general.
 
  by: l´anglais     11/25/2007 06:02 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
You seem to have more trust and faith in the government than the rest of us. Some of the world's biggest economies also have the highest unemployment rates (compared to the U.S.). Also don't forget that profit also creates an incentive to improve goods and services, where a "non-profit" (if you believe the government will only use your money for non-nefarious services) creates no incentive to improve. I find it ironic that many of the people scream about "big corporate monopolies" readily trust the biggest monopoly there is, the federal government.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   11/25/2007 06:24 AM     
  @l'anglais  
 
Well, it is true that the health insurance company is a type of middleman as well, but like I said, competition between insurance providers will ensure the best possible quality and affordability, as long as the government butts out of everything. Also, you can always go straight to the health care provider if you would prefer. And by the same token, as long as the government butts out of how doctors and patients do business with each other as much as possible, then you will see that competition will rise, prices will decrease, and maximum quality will be assured. All of this will mean nothing of course, as long as the government continues to print money at will, vis a vis the federal reserve. The point is that people need to be as free as possible in every way, in order to coexist with each other as happily as possible. Social medicine is just another way that man deludes himself into thinking that he can control his nature better than his own nature can. Ever hear of Stalins 3 year plans? He thought that he could dictate how the people produced and traded food better than they could. Millions starved, while fake elections were held. Stay away from that road.
 
  by: Circuit_Monkey   11/25/2007 06:48 AM     
  Good for Wal-mart  
 
I don't know what they are crying about. It says in the contract that they signed that if they recieved miney from another source fr the same injury then they were to give back the money that was payed to them. How did they think that just because she had a brain trauma and "needed" the money they were now allowed to break the contract?
 
  by: qwerty017   11/25/2007 08:08 AM     
  It is called subrogation.  
 
It was established under common law and it is part of most insurance policies. Considering the care that she needs, the best thing for her is to be indigent. That way, the State will pay all of her bills, which will probably run into the millions.
 
  by: walter3ca   11/25/2007 10:35 AM     
  @CircuitMonkey: 'all hail the god of profit'  
 
You cannot trust anybody, just as the govt. is corrupt, you have companies like Enron, where the profit is king.

In a 'private' healthcare model, people are in a Money Making Business, where the line of business is 'health' like it could have been 'cars'. The aim is the same; how can we cut corners to turn a profit and *still* stay in business.

In a world of commerce, the one who turns the biggest proft, Wins.
http://www.cfo.com/...

Spitzer to Congress: Insurance scandal will grow
http://www.usatoday.com/...


"Congress should dig deeper into the burgeoning scandal within the insurance industry, a top investigator said Tuesday, saying lawmakers will find a "Pandora's box" of unethical conduct."

Your defense is 'government' is not to be trusted - yet your shrill chant for RonPaul puts your faith in it. I say neither Governemnt or Big Corp is to be trusted. But the model for a 'Big Profit Margin' on your heart op, sucks against a model where any 'profit' goes back into the system rather than VentureCapitalists.

Another defense is govt. executes taxation on behalf of Federal Bank (FederalTax) and it's wong - so move it all away from the govt. Hmm, but the govt. taxes you anyway, and instead of attack that, you would ask us to pay *again* for what the FederalTax should have been funding already?

Godwin's law seems to protect people from being called 'fascists'. Yet everyone seems to call out 'Stalin' when it suits them. Does that mean RonPaul is JeffSkilling or KenLay (Enron)?

And you're saying RonPaul2008 loves BigCorp?
 
  by: redstain   11/25/2007 10:52 AM     
  Just another reason...  
 
Just another reason, why after 7 years I quit Thursday morning. I effing can't stand Walmart!
 
  by: carmex4thesoul   11/25/2007 11:02 AM     
  From what..  
 
I understand of subrogation it works like this (example):

Person A injures Person B (who has medical insurance)

Person B undergoes medical treatment which is covered by his/her insurer.

Person B's insurer sues Person A, on behalf of person B, to recover some or all of their costs. However any amount awarded in excess of the insurer's costs is *supposed* to go back the the victim (Person B).

The arguement for subrogation, is that it prevents 'undue enrichment' by the victim. Meaning (without subrogation) you could claim from your medical insurance for your medical bills *and* sue the other person and pocket the award. This is supposed to be "a bad thing" (tm).

The arguement against subrogation (in my own words) is that insurance is basicly a gamble. In exchange for a small (relatively speaking) re-occuring payment, the insurance company is betting that they will be able to pocket it, without ever having to pay out for anything. Subrogation, negates or minimizes that risk (for the company). In effect shifting that "undue enrichment" from the victim, to the company.
 
  by: StarShadow     11/25/2007 11:49 AM     
  @starshadow: "undue enrichment"  
 
The situation sucks.

The insurance company received insurance premiums from the client. When the client is injured, the insurance company pays for the insurance - plain and simple.

So where does that leave the client? She has the benefit of living the rest of her days, drooling in bed. Sweet.
 
  by: redstain   11/25/2007 12:52 PM     
  Revenge has been done  
 
If what some of you guys feel has affected your buying from there imagine what they will lose? Ok, just a little but it adds up to a loss of some sort with people shopping else where.
I have only shopped at a wall mart once, if I am ever lucky enough to get back to the USA I will avoid it to now, this is one very MEAN company and I am very pleased they have had bad press…
 
  by: captainJane     11/25/2007 01:05 PM     
  @CaptainJane  
 
What revenge? It won't work. It never works. People say they won't shop at wal-mart but they always end up doing it. It might take a while but after a while people forget why they stopped going there and end up shopping there again.

Also, this is for everyone, I don't know how it is at wal-mart, the source doesn't say, but if wal-mart was the one paying the premiums then the Shanks don't have a right to it.
 
  by: qwerty017   11/25/2007 03:13 PM     
  not suprising  
 
Wally world also takes out life insurance policies on its employees, so when an employee dies, they collect.
 
  by: elijah4twenty     11/25/2007 04:32 PM     
  @communiststain  
 
If a company is truly corrupt, such as Enron truly was, then the role of government is to hold them accountable for their crimes. What you are proposing is something totally different, which is the idea that the government should totally replace the company, like say socializing American oil. Don't we have enough oil interests controlling our government? What makes you think that the government would be any smarter with our health?

In a private health care model people are in a money making business, because naturally, that is what defines business. If you want to make the personal choice to engage in charity, then you should be completely free to. But if you think that your charitable ideas about my money are going to create a better health care market for everyone somehow, then you are asking me to go down the exact same road to doom that every socialist system inevitably reaches. It is then you who are corrupt in this case, having nothing to do with health care providers, customers, or insurance companies.

Your math is retarded. Federal income tax can be cut as long as federal spending can be cut to match. It's like one minus one, figure it out.

I put my faith in Ron Paul first and foremost, because he is a sincere, brilliant human being who understands that government needs to be as small as possible in order to serve the needs of the people as well as possible. And of course that includes the businesses that we choose to take part in, whether it be as individuals, or as a part of a corporation. I have however been recently introduced to the idea that it is corrupt for corporations to be legal entities. I find this argument compelling.
 
  by: Circuit_Monkey   11/25/2007 05:51 PM     
  @Circuit_Monkey  
 
Don't forget also, that at least with said "evil corporations", they can be easily put out of business if enough consumers know about obscene business practices. With a company, the only people that can dictate how much money they make is the consumer. At the end, they are at the mercy of the average consumer. Government, on the other hand, is the one monopoly where one is not given any choice in the matter. Just stop giving money to the government and see what happens. Government will come after you with a SWAT team, and a business would just flounder and shut down.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   11/25/2007 05:57 PM     
  @CJ  
 
Yea keep crying BOO HOO online and once you flip (click) another page, forget about it.

Remember, this is a country that went to an illegal WAR against a nation that is completely dispersed at this moment, lives are screwed up completely, and this is done to, not one, or, two people. Millions of them.

We, as a society, see this and abhor, while we come online and vent, including the sports casters and athletes, then later, what is the first thing that comes out of their stupid mouths!!?

" I thank God for strenght, and support our troops TO FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM" >>>>> NO GODAMNIT... Yell and scream for our troops to come home...Stupid. Its illegal!!!!

Wal-Mart and governments are not there, for anyone to make money, but themselves.

Walmart will pay your bills happily, knowing that, you are pursuing a lawsuit, including the government. That is considered an income if you win. Which also means you get to pay your own Bills. Simply put, reimburse.

My brother was sacked from his work and pursued a lawsuit for discrimination. For the next 18 months he was on UI and ended up in Welfare. When he won the case, he was paid a lumpsum of 65,000 for the duration.

Government deducted taxes on NET, UI took the 8 months worth of what they gave him, welfare deducted the rest and boot him off the welfare, which he ended up with $3200, for 18 months of waiting.

How did this fare for him?? He jsut went on to take the giant with the tax man, behind his back. Simply put he did, all that, so that Gov can have their money back. Is this fare, if you ask me? HELL YESSSSSSSS.

Now just ask why? I will explain if need be.
 
  by: isuzu     11/25/2007 06:06 PM     
  @Red  
 
"is this the healthcare model you want? After all, the a private company's primary responsibility is towards it's shareholders. (Notice I didn't say employees)"

Erm, what does this have to do with healthcare?
Its to do with insurance.
As I've said previously, move to the UK and try our wonderful healthcare system, where your 5 times more likely to die from prostate cancer than in the US.
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     11/25/2007 06:17 PM     
  @'freedom-o-choicers'  
 
You seem to be mistaken that 'Enron' was only a 'bad apple' in the barrel. Everyone has a price; you put an exec, or even a joe-schmoe who's slaved to make his pension and worried about losing his job and give him a moral dilemma.

"an extra $100k and extra 4 weeks holiday; just to delay a check or pass the brown envelope to the auditors"

And with the health service, you *CANNOT* take a freemarket model with this. Because, pressures of the free market, federal taxation, and basic greed will cause the health system - a concept of altruism - to ultimately decline.

Giving money to cure another man is unnatural for the baser <looks at CM> instincts. That's why I find it funny when people get on their high horses and claim to be worried about the 'khurds' and the 'bombed villagers' when it politically suits them.

If my maths is so retarded.. YOU tell me where the FederalTax goes.



1) "communis-tain"? Not accurate, and almost endearing. Is that like a plushie?

2) I don't hate RonPaul is bad. I think the people around him (GOP) and the people who support him (*you*) are. As far as I am concerned, he's the Bait the GOP's laid out for America.
 
  by: redstain   11/25/2007 06:39 PM     
  @AQ: you brits lead unhealthier lives.  
 
The only people who seem to smoke more than you are Spanish/Portugese and Italians. I bet that skews your lungcancer/cardiac stats as well. A little dental care wouldn't go amiss too.
 
  by: redstain   11/25/2007 06:43 PM     
  @AQ: don't take it personally, your society  
 
isn't based on image - I know, I know.

"What a little more curry on your chip butty, luv?"
 
  by: redstain   11/25/2007 06:45 PM     
  Apologies for earlier statement.  
 
I retract my previous comments to AQ. My response was disproportionate to a perfectly reasonable observation.

I don't have the stats of prostate cancer deaths in US or UK, nor had I checked them up. I'd be willing to interested in seeing AQ's source concerning that.
 
  by: redstain   11/25/2007 06:54 PM     
  ////  
 
"Wally world also takes out life insurance policies on its employees, so when an employee dies, they collect."
Most US companies are doing this now. (Lucent Technologies for one)It's legal (they are supposed to ask your permission.), but highly unethical. IMO
 
  by: Lurker     11/25/2007 07:08 PM     
  @<deleted by admin>  
 
I don't doubt that the criminal behavior at Enron was the rule rather the exception. I suppose that these people operated on the assumption that they would never be caught by the government, do to the fact that they are the government to a large extent. I think that you understand what I am saying when I tell you that corporations have friends in high places. Just look at Haliburton vis a vis Cheney. The point there is that government has to be removed from business as much as possible, so that there is no conflict of interest when it comes time to prosecute companies for breaking the law.

A free market approach to health care only works if you take a free market approach to all industries, and a libertarian approach to all aspects of life period. The idea is to have as little government as possible, and that is called "minarchism" This is also an altruistic idea, in that it aims to provide as healthy of an economy as humanly possible for each individual, and also as much liberty as possible in every other aspect of life as well. This is the original American way which we have terrible faltered from in modern times, and the difference between this idea and the Utopia for all promised by socialism, is that this actually works, as opposed to the hell on Earth that socialism inevitably leads to.

If you think that I would be a lesser person if I chose not to give my money to an ill person, then I don't care. You can go ahead and give to all of the charities that you want, and maybe you'll even get your face in the paper for it one day. The truth is that I can't afford charity, so think what you want.

I'm not sure if you are bringing up Khurds in a failed attempt to relate to an unrelated comment I made about northern Pakistanis being bombed in a separate story, but otherwise I have no idea why you bring it up.

Federal tax goes towards federal spending. This is a fairly well knows fact, and I encourage you to one day pull your head out of your ass and notice something.

If "Communiststain" was a plushie, then maybe he would be a cute little red bear that the government gave to cancer patients instead of actual treatment.

Well, any idiot can tell that the established GOP is totally against Ron Paul, because republicans have gone from being libertarians in the beginning, to being todays neo-cons. And if you think that I am bad, then I suppose that makes me feel unhappy. Warm regards.
 
  by: Circuit_Monkey   11/25/2007 08:35 PM     
  @Circuit_Monkey  
 
Amen brother!
It's nice not to be the only defender of free-market capitalism and minarchist philosophy on this site.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   11/25/2007 08:45 PM     
  ...  
 
Read the source. So much bad things have happened to the Shank family.

I'm surprised they haven't commited suicide.
 
  by: vant   11/25/2007 11:36 PM     
  Is this hell or what  
 
"Yea keep crying BOO HOO online and once you flip (click) another page, forget about it."

You don't know me at all if that is what you think, I have friends out there I listen to i very much care

"Remember, this is a country that went to an illegal WAR against a nation that is completely dispersed at this moment, lives are screwed up completely, and this is done to, not one, or, two people. Millions of them.

We, as a society, see this and abhor," while we come online and vent, including the sports casters and athletes, then later, what is the first thing that comes out of their stupid mouths!!?

" I thank God for strenght, and support our troops TO FIGHT FOR OUR FREEDOM" >>>>> NO GODAMNIT... Yell and scream for our troops to come home...Stupid. Its illegal!!!!"

It is bloody ilegal and totally insane!

Wal-Mart and governments are not there, for anyone to make money, but themselves."

A bit like BOTH our Governments wouldn't you say?

qwerty017What "revenge? It won't work. It never works. People say they won't shop at wal-mart but they always end up doing it. It might take a while but after a while people forget why they stopped going there and end up shopping there again."

I think I have already answere that one.:)

I am just watching the wall mart link that Network has sent me this company should be liquidated; and from what I am hearing it is still down to the perverse government.Onr thing for sure I WIL NOT forget what I have heard here and will NEVER buy anything from that store. EVER!

Thank God they have not reached this place.

So sick, health care or food Answers, we have a cra-p NHS but we can never compare our selves to this.

Thank you @net this link has really opened my eyes.

http://video.google.com/...


 
  by: captainJane     11/25/2007 11:51 PM     
  @CM:  
 
I don't think I'm a commie, but if that imagery help you get through life, I'll play along.

I'm glad we at least agree on the first paragraph; all companies are corru - heck, no; just driven by greed.

But I'm concerned you automatically assume I'd imagine socialism to be a panacea. Socialism is unnatural, but it has it's place in society. I'd almost imagine you're forcing a polarized view of 'freemarket'vs'socialism' to force an choice between 'hell through dog eat dog' vs 'hell through decline/collapse'. You can take the best of both worlds.

You claim you can't afford charity. In truth, not many people can. This is because of the unfair taxation in force today. You anger and aggression is vented at a mechanism that is a potential force for good whilst the real cause of people's hardship is the FederalTax that has siphoned off your disposable income.
 
  by: redstain   11/26/2007 02:07 AM     
  @CJ  
 
Sorry the words were not meant to be just for you, but rather to all of us online.

We support and condemn at the sametime, depending on the mood when it is happening. Thats where the problem lies...
 
  by: isuzu     11/26/2007 02:22 AM     
  isuzu  
 
I sometimes get crossed wires with the way we express here to your way there.

But sometimes feel I could be ther with you all, very strange but so true, I pray one day your home will be at peace and away for all this corruption.

Even the car parks my God this is just so negligent, cried about it that poor young girl.

Seeing how they have enslaved honst people ,it is such a crime. :( What can we do? I am so mad at it all really. e

Taken away peoples homes and very life, even the natzies treated their own better than this. Would love to bring it all down around their ears,I so would.
 
  by: captainJane     11/26/2007 03:14 AM     
  @homegrown420  
 
Stealing from Wal-mart just makes you as petty and criminal as they are...
 
  by: jediman3     11/26/2007 07:10 PM     
  @Circuit_Monkey  
 
Altering people's screen names in replies (as a method of personal attack) is rather childish and does nothing to bolster your argument. Don't do that again.
 
  by: Lurker     11/27/2007 04:42 AM     
  Rich Bastards  
 
They can never have too much money.
 
  by: RazaF   11/27/2007 06:29 AM     
  This one's a no brainer...  
 
Wall Mart is SCUM!
 
  by: Zmethod     11/27/2007 06:35 AM     
  *yawn*  
 
Wal-Mart hate is overrated. People hate people who make money, simple as that. You guys need to watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode about Wal Mart hate.
 
  by: Libertario Cubano   11/27/2007 06:44 AM     
  That's..  
 
A very tired old argument. It is neither logical nor accurate to simply blame dislike/distaste/outright hatred on jealousy, that is simply taking the easy way out. Also note, disliking/hating a company is not necessarily the same as disliking/hating the people who own it, the two can be separate issues, and should not be confused. For example, I admire Bill Gates for his philanthropy, however I dislike Microsoft due to their business practices.

I would expect that different people have different reasons for disliking Wal-Mart, I would also suspect that where money (in the form of profit) factors into it, it is not the sole reason. Some people may dislike Wal-Mart due to it's business ethics (or lack thereof), some might cite their treatment of employees, or their environmental record. The point is, different people will have different reasons, and I would posit that for the vast majority it is not a simple case of jealousy.
 
  by: StarShadow     11/27/2007 11:11 AM     
  f walmart...  
 
I'm not buying there anymore. They can make their rich greedy a$$es rich off of someone else...

Did you read this article! We all know that once the medical care providers know you have insurance they raise the price of all services.

I'm really disappointed that a person gives up their sons for a country that then tells them in their time of need: its all about the $ baby!

Does anybody know anything about a fund for these people! If i ever get an urge to buy something at walmart, i'll send them the money instead. Walmart doesn't have a God-given right to monopolize... business exists without walmart and in fact, business would be more diverse and locally beneficial if it wasn't for these accountants - oh, i mean bastards!
 
  by: mexicanrevolution   11/27/2007 09:30 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com