I have a perfect example of what is wrong with the US. And, unfortunately, I have a feeling most of my readers will read the following and react in just the wrong way. But let us conduct an experiment. Here is a post I found on youtube. I am not vouching for the truth or falsehood of the post, nor of any facts, I just reproduce what I read:

-------------------------------
If you have not already heard, Walmart has decided to take $470,000 from Debbie Shank, a 52 year old mother of three (One of her sons recently died in Iraq), who was involved in a terrible car accident crippling her short term memory, leaving her in a wheelchair, and in a nursing home.

Because of the fine print of Walmarts health insurance plan, since Debbie was involved in a car accident and was awarded the money to take care of the tragic aftermath, they are entitled to take all the money that was supposed to go to taking care of Debbie.

THEY ACTUALLY WANT $470,000 from this handicapped woman in a wheelchair, who needs it to be taken care of in the future. This coming from a company that made $90 billion last quarter...

Here is the link to the full story:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walm...

I'm asking for you to stop buying from Walmart, and to pass on this story and link to everyone you know.

-------------------------------------

Edits:
1. $417,000 was put into a trust fund, and $470,000 is what Walmart is trying to get from her.
2. I realized I said $90 billion a year, when it is actually $90 billion a quarter. Simple mistake. mhm mhm

Now, having read that, how many people think Walmart is wrong?

That is precisely what is wrong with the US. You see, we, as a people, think of law suits as a sort of lottery, if we get lucky enough to get  a big judgment, we are entitled to it. No, it is there to make whole someone who is injured by a stranger. So it should go to her medical expenses and upkeep.

Now, the problem is, most insurance contracts say, if you have some form of payment to provide for medical care, the insurer can seek recompense form that other source. It makes sense, if someone else is paying for your health care, insurance shouldn't have to pick up the tab. And, in this case, if the insurer paid more than the amount of the settlement, they are entitled to it. It is unfortunate for the injured party, but she could ahve refused to elt insurance pay for her health care, then paid out fo pocket formt he suit, but would probably have been worse off.

I could go on and on, but here are the three things I learned from the post:

1. We blame Wal Mart for anything, even things their insurance carrier did.
2. We think insurance should provide care as a right, even when we have other sources of payment, and we should never be charged a dime
3. We think legal settlements are the lottery, money which should never be touched by anyone else to whom we might legally owe money
4. We believe in contracts unless they produce "bad" results.
5. people and companies should be paid unless they earn too much money, then it doesn't matter.
6. If you add a dead son who was in Iraq, you can count on even more support

Granted, this is a bad PR move for the insurer and WalMart, if it is true (I didn't check, as my interest was the public reaction, not the facts themselves), but just as excluding pre-existing conditions produces sad results, but is only common sense, so is it just common sense that alternate means of payment should go to the insurer. The bottom line is, someone has to pay for care, and the insurer only agrees to pay for care for which no other payment exists. If there is a judgment, then there is other money. had she lacke dinsurance, she would ahve had to pay out of pocket, so the same applies here.

Why on earth is it unfair to make someone pay for their own care? Or abide by the terms of a contract?

That we think "justice" has everything to do with net worth and "good and bad" and "fair and unfair", rather than the terms of the contract and legal obligations shows everything that is wrong with the US today. Justice is about each getting what they deserve, but deserve not in some cosmic ethical sense, but in a very strict, legal sense. No more, no less. The government exists to enforce rights and adjudicate contracts, not to enforce some sort of "equity" in life. That many of those who read the citation above would want to have the government step in and "fix" the situation frightens me, as it is precisely the sort of thinking that got us where we are.

POSTSCRIPT

I gather this is an old story (I don't usually follow tear jerker "social justice" tales, so I missed it), but regardless of that, it is a perfect example of senseless populist manipulation. Somehow, Wal Mart is to blame because their insurance carrier is abiding by the letter of the contract and taking money meant for medial expenses to pay for medical expenses.And that si wrong ebcause the people with more money end up with more than the poor people. Before anyone signs on and thinks that poverty is some sort of ticket to moral right and Wal mart "should" let her keep the money, ask yourself this, are there more people richer than you or poorer? Think worldwide. Then ask, if poverty is a ticket to the holdings of the rich, how rosy does your future look? If every person with even a dime less has more right than you do, and anyone who can spend or drink or drug himself into having less than you do can claim your wealth, what will become of you? That is the principle being promoted here, that poverty is its own justification, that wealth is a sign that one lacks merit. If you agree with that, then you have simply set yourself, and the rest of us, for eventual poverty. Because we will never be so rich that some industrious reprobate couldn't spend it all up and come back to ask for more.