I was searching for ‘%KEYWORD%’ at google and got this your post (’%TITLE%’) in search results. Not very relevant result, but still interesting to read :)…

That is a very strict Act by international standards, as far as I am aware, though. Part of the matrix of reasons why there isn’t an Australian reinsurance industry to speak of.

I don’t follow your argument, Patrick. How would limited right of subrogation affect the the reinsurance industry?

That is a very strict Act by international standards, as far as I am aware, though. Part of the matrix of reasons why there isn’t an Australian reinsurance industry to speak of.

My comment about the lawyers wasn’t meant to be a red herring as I was kind of shocked everyone was beating up on the firm while legals were getting a clear pass for charging some pretty high fees for what seemed to have been a pretty easy case to deal with.

There’s some serious pressure on the cost side of the US healthcare system at the moment and everyone seems to be fumbling around trying to figure how to kill some of these costs (no not the patients).

This is simply staggering:

Premiums for family coverage have surged by 78 percent since 2001, while wages have gone up 19 percent

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_health_insurance_costs_rise_near_09122007.html

My own view is that that is a reasonably equitable balancing provision which allows impecunious litigants with strong cases to get legal representation but doesn’t unduly reward the lawyer or unduly penalise the impecunious litigant in the event of success.

In a similar sense, I think it is desirable to limit statutorily the ability of insurers to subrogate (i.e. as in the Shank case). It’s fair enough that the insurer can recover the amount of any medical expenses they have actually paid out from any damages recovered AND REFERABLE TO THOSE MEDICAL EXPENSES, but not that the insurer have an open-ended right of recovery from any damages a person receives under whatever head. To what extent this accords with current Australian law, however, I’m not sure. As I say, it’s not really my area.

Thanks for the link. Aside from the Walmart case……….

“It’s free money. They want the free money,” Mr. Baron said.

Do you insure your house multiple times? Do you expect to be paid multiple times.

Perhaps you could email Professor Baron and ask him.

Indeed if I understand the reports correctly, this case has actually caused Walmart to force its insurance companies to revise the contracts:

Wal-Mart’s Curran said the retailer was required by the rules of its plan to seek reimbursement from the Shank’s settlement. But she said the case has made Wal-Mart revise those rules to allow for flexibility in individual cases.

One might file this under ‘an ideal world might be different’ but it does look to me like one could much more easily file it under ‘this is another beat up on Walmarts by the usual suspects‘ than ‘US supermarket giant Walmart are a bunch of complete arseholes‘.

The case put a spotlight on the growing use of reimbursement claims by health plans, experts say. Roger Baron, professor of law at the University of South Dakota and a specialist in health-plan law, said health plans have become “very aggressive” about subrogation since the 2006 Supreme Court decision.

“It’s free money. They want the free money,” Mr. Baron said.

Lynn Dudley, vice president for policy at the American Benefits Council in Washington, D.C., said the negative publicity around the case was beginning to draw the attention of lawmakers who might want legislation to stop or limit subrogation.

No, no, you’re right, RA.

Thanks. I’m rarely ever wrong and thanks for recognizing that.

Ignore that part…. sorry

No, no, you’re right, RA.

Thanks. I’m rarely ever wrong and thanks for recognizing that.

Admittedly, the claim Walmarts is making is not a good look by any stretch of the imagination. Normally I am generally sympathetic to these guys as they have been under siege for years with all the spurious claims about how evil they are.. They could have been a little better at handling this thing. They are well run firm that has offered the American public great savings.

You noticed cut the lawyers took from the deal? 40%! We never knew that until I figured it out from the WSJ piece. The bloggers were too busy trying to hack some walmart flesh to notice. Why a 40% isn’t egregious while Walmarts is needs to be explained to me as I don’t get it.

when precisely 100% of everyone in the office I was working in over there for the last 4 weeks had nothing but gripes about dealing with health insurance)

Who knows? 4 weeks is hardly a reasonable time to figure out the US healthcare system. I lived 16 years and found it truly excellent…. but there is a lot of paper shuffling.

A person ought to be able to get the care they need after such an incident. The amount of money they have claimed for can’t possibly be sufficient. That may not be Walmart’s fault, but that is not the point.

And yes, whoever made the decision to sue the family for $4700000 is heartless. It’s pretty damn obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that they have every need in the world for $470000, whereas Walmart has 0 need for it.

I wonder, were the other employees of Walmart, for whose sake the cost recovery was allegedly done, even consulted? I would like to see the result of a poll that asked every employee of Walmart whether to choose between a few cents extra out of their paycheque and the Shank family being asked to cough up $470000.

As for 89% of Americans being happy with their healthcare, even if such a stat had anything to it (and I do wonder how it can be, when precisely 100% of everyone in the office I was working in over there for the last 4 weeks had nothing but gripes about dealing with health insurance) it doesn’t change the fact that a) America’s health system is absurdly expensive and b) those who have the most problems with it (and the least access to it) are those that need it the most, rarely through any fault of their own.

The firm (the trucking frim) had only $1 million in liability coverage, though. For his own losses, Mr. Shank received $200,000, of which $119,000 remained after legal expenses. He says he spent most of it toward a one-story house fitted with ramps and wider doors, which is more accessible than the family’s previous three-level home.

So the legal firm took 40% of his proceeds.

So the $700,0000 she received was a separate claim for the poor woman. The husband also received an award obviously for being her carer.

Not saying this is a lot of money under these circumstances, but it’s hardly the amount of money some blogs are suggesting.

See here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119551952474798582.html?mod=WSJBlog

I went to the WSJ article that first ran the story some time ago.

Let me ask you: You think it’s fine for the lawyers to get their costs out of the award but not Walmart that had to shell out the medical expenses to begin with it?

“The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering,” Graham said.

“She’ll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses.”

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust — far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

In other words, it appears that only $100,000 of the money Walmart is trying to extract from Mrs Shank could even vaguely be described as “double dipping”, in that it was the amount of money recovered as damages for medical expenses incurred. The rest was for other heads of general damages not in any sense referable to money Walmart had provided. It appears that Mrs Shank didn’t succeed in recovering the whole of the cost of medical expenses as special damages (which sometimes occurs). Walmart is seeking to recover not “double dipped” funds but solely under a clause of the employee medical benefits agreement Mrs Shank signed whereby she agreed that Walmart could recover money they paid her from ANY damages whatsoever she later recovered in respect of a claim, even if it was not money paid by way of reimbursement of the medical expenses Walmart had paid. Thus they’re trying to grab her damages for future earnings, pain and suffering and everything else. That seems to me to adequately merit the label “arseholes” if not something even more condemnatory. This sort of clause in a medical benefits insurance policy might well be statutorily barred in Australia, and I suspect would certainly be at serious risk of being struck down as an unconscionable bargain.

However, it seems many (if not most) libertarians seem to feel like it’s there job to defend the actions of any corporation, no matter how damaging or heartless they might be.

Heartless? So a person ought to be able to claim medical insurance twice if his/her ailment meets your personal horror (preference) test?

I certainly wouldn’t be defending Walmart if it behaved illegally or were sitting behind a regulatory protectionist wall. But it isn’t. Walmart prospers in a contestable market and we should be applaud them. The benefits of providing cheaper consumer goods to americans has been a truly amazing story. They are a great firm.

Yes, insurance premiums will go up - by maybe a few cents per employee. I’d prefer it was spread across the entire nation via single-payer insurance, but the negative effect on those who don’t suffer horrible accidents is neglible compared to the benefit to those tiny fraction who do.

Well you may think the solution is a state run insurance program, but i would get that past americans first if I were you. I saw a poll which showed 89% of Americans are happy with their medical insurance. And why wouldn’t they be as it is the best medical system in the world.

I repeat this is another example of a Walmrt beat up by the usual suspects.

My second point is simply that libertarianism (and a general positive attitude towards capitalism) will never gain mainstream acceptance until capitalists start acting more like regular human beings. However, it seems many (if not most) libertarians seem to feel like it’s there job to defend the actions of any corporation, no matter how damaging or heartless they might be.

If Wal-mart had decided to donate money to the accident victim, then I’d think they make an effort to have this fact known - but honestly, how dumb can a system be that they are somehow legally bound to attempt to “recover costs” even when they intend to give the money right back again.

You don’t know that for sure as their story rarely ever gets out. As I explained the entity most likely making the claim is the medical insurance entity that acts and administers for WalMart. Most medium to large US firms self-insure.

From the point of view of the accident victim, I honestly don’t see how you can call it “double dipping”. Dipping into what exactly? And what on earth is she getting out of it?

WalMart paid her medical expenses. Part of the legal claim against the trucking firm was for medical expenses. That’s double dipping.

The point is that as a society we are more than rich enough to ensure that people who suffer unspeakable tragedies such as this can have their suffering kept to a minimum at no noticeable loss to the rest of us. What possible moral argument is there for not doing so?

There’s a good argument. Wal-Mart has to be careful how it manages its medical insurance arm or premiums will go up which means that the wages component of total fact or income will fall.

What saddens me most is that Wal-mart have obviously decided that they won’t lose more than $470,000 in sales by acting in this sort of manner. I.e., they’re all too aware that most people have simply stopped caring.

Ok, fair enough. Then why don’t you get going by starting a fund on her behalf or call her and ask where you can make a donation?