Wal Mart drops claim to injury award.

[Flagg]

Who cares what fucking side you're on? You made specific claims about fraud, if someone is awarded money any more than "premiums, work and co-pay" it is fraud. I pointed out a specific example, punitative damages, which certainly is in addition to your neutered list.

You really are a fucking idiot, aren't you? Have you ever received a full frontal lobotomy? If not, maybe you should.

No where did I mention "punitive damages" you dumb twat. Also, if you had bothered to read and respond to what I actually wrote as opposed to what you imagined I wrote, you'd know that I specifically said that claiming medical expenses that were paid for by your insurance carrier and keeping the money awarded is fraud.

You're pretty fucking dickless if you think that any award above and beyond the actual monetary cost of injuries is a "bonanza." It's easy to blame America's lawsuit happy culture rather than look at the underlying cause, the Corporate rape of America and lack of accountability.

If you had bothered to read and respond to what I actually wrote as opposed to what you imagined I wrote, you'd know that I specifically said that claiming medical expenses that were paid for by your insurance carrier and keeping the money awarded is a 'bonanza'.

The problem with your position is it's logically inconsistent. If you are using the word fraud in a legal sense, the court awarded the damages so it is no longer fraud but legal.

No you fucking retard, it's not. The court has awarded you compensation for medical expenses. If you fail to pass that on to your insurance company that actually paid the bulk of those expenses, then that is fraud. In a moral sense, if not a legal one. I think that depends on what state and/or country you live in. Nice to see you using legalism as a defense though, you fucking moron.

If you are using it in a less specific sense, they deserve the money.

Illustrate how someone who didn't incur full medical expenses deserves to keep money awarded for those expenses, please. This should be good.

Too fucking bad you can't see you're second guessing the court, and the fact that the people whined after Wal-Mart went after them doesn't change the fact medical expenses were awarded in the first place. Whining is not fraud dumbshit. You make it seem as if they set up a place in the Camen islands ready to ship the 400k over rather than merely complaining.

Listen you fucking cumstain. Listen very fucking well, and try not to filter this through the retard section of your brain:

I AM NOT NOW, NOR HAVE I EVER ACCUSED THE SHANKS OF FRAUD, YOU STUPID TWAT. I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED THAT THEY AND ANYONE ELSE IN THAT SITUATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THAT MONEY FOR FUTURE MEDICAL CARE AND HAVE TWICE STATED MY SUPPORT FOR A LEGAL LOOPHOLE. I HAVE ALSO STATED THAT WALMARTS ACTIONS ARE MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE.

I answered the crux of your argument: "Why should the person be injured get a bonanza?" It is a perfectly sensible answer, punishment. If you don't accept it then you're just a fucking dumbshit.

Punishment for whom, you stupid fuck? The insurance company that paid the medical expenses? Why are you punishing a third party that held up it's end of the bargain? Oh, that's right, because you're so fucking stupid you don't even know what the fuck you're arguing about.

Punitive damages and awards for pain and suffering serve a purpose. That purpose is punishing the negligent party monetarily and compensating the victim of their negligence for their suffering. This is the first time I'm actually talking about such awards. Prior to this I was specifically talking about... Wait for it... MONETARY DAMAGES INCURRED FROM MEDICAL EXPENSES!

Idiot.

[Flagg]

Why should the person who was injured get a bonanza? The only money he is out from it is lost work, premiums, and co-pay.

You're forgetting about future costs of the injury. Disability awards usually compensate for lifelong costs and lost opportunities going forward. That's why they're often far in excess of medical costs incurred so far.

Except that I'm talking about awards for medical costs already incurred. I agree that if there are future costs and a permanent disability then that is another factor that should be judged when it comes to an insurance company trying to recoup its losses.

Why should the rest of the people who pay their premiums have to eat the costs of someone else's (the person who was sued) negligence?

It's funny; for someone who opposes for-profit health-care, you really don't seem to get the rationale of universal health care. This is EXACTLY the same argument used by opponents of universal health care to argue that it's unjust. After all, it often forces everyone to pay for the mistakes of the few.

Except that in the situation I'm talking about, the person received an award for medical expenses that have already been taken care of by his insurance company. It's essentially getting money for damages that someone else (the insurer) accrued.

[Darth Wong]

Except that in the situation I'm talking about, the person received an award for medical expenses that have already been taken care of by his insurance company. It's essentially getting money for damages that someone else (the insurer) accrued.

That is only applicable if the person lied and claimed he had no insurance. In which case the remedy would be reducing the damage award and possibly charging him with perjury.

[Flagg]

Flagg, before you make even more of an ass of yourself, kindly go and read up on the basics of insurance law, negligence and the concept of damages and how it all works and ties together. DW has it right.

I'm not making a legal argument or an argument based on insurance law, and if I gave that impression then that is my error and I apologize. I'm making a moral argument.

Except that in the situation I'm talking about, the person received an award for medical expenses that have already been taken care of by his insurance company. It's essentially getting money for damages that someone else (the insurer) accrued.

That is only applicable if the person lied and claimed he had no insurance. In which case the remedy would be reducing the damage award and possibly charging him with perjury.

Agreed. Can the insurance companies themselves sue the negligent party for the money they put out? Because that would be another remedy that I think is quite fair.


I'm going to take this opportunity to try to better lay out my opinions on this. I feel like taking an award for damages due to medical expenses (assuming the court is going by the total medical bills, not just the out of pocket expenses) and not reimbursing the insurance company their portion is dishonest and essentially fraudulent. Not the legal definition, but the moral definition.
Obviously I don't believe that this applies in cases like the one this thread is based on. It's not in anyones best interest to deny this woman, or anyone in a similar predicament, the money they need for future care. The money Wal-Mart (or any insurance provider) is out in this and similar cases is negligible and they would force this woman to further decrease her standard of living while also shifting more of the burden onto services that would otherwise not be taxed by someone with the resources Mrs. Shank got from the judgment.

I'm in no way defending health insurance companies or taking their side on this. I despise them and to illustrate what I think should happen to them and the scum that run them would violate several board rules, so I shall not do that.

[Edi]

Flagg, you fail to see the whole goddamned operating principle of an insurance company from the perspective of its customers.

An insurance company is a calculated gamble. They say that in exchange for x money per month, they will cover your medical expenses or fire damage to your house or whatever, but they will only do so IF the event actualizes. The reason it works is that for most people, the event does NOT actualize, so the company gets to keep the money and if and when somebody somewhere draws the short straw and gets hit with Bad Things, the pool of money is enough to cover that. The company still makes a profit.

Once the customer has paid his insurance fees and taken necessary precautions against the covered bad events, there is absolutely NO duty whatsoever to pay anything back to the insurance company. EVER. That's the whole fucking point of the business model. You still seem to be laboring under the uniquely American stupidity and delusion that everyone always has to be able to pay their own way for full cost everywhere even if they took insurance and the corporation should be able to only rake in profit and have no expenses and no risk of any kind whatsoever.

That's between insurance company and the person they ensure. The real villain in this story is WalMart, which is paying for an insurance company to insure its employees and then inserts a clause to employment contracts where it passes the full costs (or as much as it can get away with) to the employee anyway. That sort of shit is forbidden by law here and for good fucking reason. The proper way to do it is for the insurance company to be able to take the damages out of the hide of the asshat who caused the bad things to happen, or from the company that insured him.

The victim has no fucking obligation toward his or her insurance company if the accident was due to no fault of his or her own.

Are you now starting to get the picture or do you need to have it drawn in crayon? Because in this case and the way it's set up in any sane system, the legal and moral argument coincide. Us socialistic Eurocommies have actually put some fucking serious thought into how our insurance systems and laws are set up and regulated and it usually happens that we need to flame Americans to a cinder and then explain to them in nice dumb pictures how this shit is supposed to work properly because you have frankly been raised completely fucked up in this regard from birth.

[Darth Wong]

Flagg, before you make even more of an ass of yourself, kindly go and read up on the basics of insurance law, negligence and the concept of damages and how it all works and ties together. DW has it right.

I'm not making a legal argument or an argument based on insurance law, and if I gave that impression then that is my error and I apologize. I'm making a moral argument.

Except that in the situation I'm talking about, the person received an award for medical expenses that have already been taken care of by his insurance company. It's essentially getting money for damages that someone else (the insurer) accrued.

That is only applicable if the person lied and claimed he had no insurance. In which case the remedy would be reducing the damage award and possibly charging him with perjury.

Agreed. Can the insurance companies themselves sue the negligent party for the money they put out? Because that would be another remedy that I think is quite fair.

I think the larger question is: is it ever seriously feasible that a person could get away with claiming that they had no health insurance in court when in fact they did? I don't think this scenario of yours is too likely at all.

[Flagg]

Flagg, before you make even more of an ass of yourself, kindly go and read up on the basics of insurance law, negligence and the concept of damages and how it all works and ties together. DW has it right.

I'm not making a legal argument or an argument based on insurance law, and if I gave that impression then that is my error and I apologize. I'm making a moral argument.

That is only applicable if the person lied and claimed he had no insurance. In which case the remedy would be reducing the damage award and possibly charging him with perjury.

Agreed. Can the insurance companies themselves sue the negligent party for the money they put out? Because that would be another remedy that I think is quite fair.

I think the larger question is: is it ever seriously feasible that a person could get away with claiming that they had no health insurance in court when in fact they did? I don't think this scenario of yours is too likely at all.

I looked around and couldn't find anything relating to this situation, so all I can think is that I was misinformed at some point. I guess it doesn't happen and the only time the issue comes up is if there is some part of the insurance agreement that has that as a stipulation.

So apparently I'm an idiot.