Originally Posted by JustJess

Drug prices are out of control, and this is a much needed step in the right direction to start being more reasonable on the costs. People need their medications, and you shouldn't be able to charge such ridiculous amounts just because they'll pay, since they need them to, oh, LIVE. .

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

A friend of mine's wife manages pharmacists for Target. Trust me, no "big box retailer" is cutting wages or benefits for pharmacists. They are far too hard to come by, especially ones willing to work outside of traditional 9-5 hours. Pharmacists are so hard to come by that senior ones can pretty much make their own schedule at Target.

Originally Posted by kutulu

Except that it isn't, really. This affects the prices of generic drugs, not name brand drugs. Lower prices for generic drugs is great but it doens't help someone that needs a name brand drug (which is sold for less in other countries).



Well that is good to hear.

Originally Posted by filtherton

That's great. I hope they find a way to deny most of their workers overtime pay and benefits next.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...Actually, the "mom and pop's" started the trend. They either hire part-timers or limit the hours of employees to below the threashold for benefits.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Do you not see the difference between small businesses struggling to survive and a company making in the neighborhood of $10 billion/yr. in profits, willing to ignore the law and write off fines as the cost of doing business?

I am all for capitalism and making a buck, but when you have a long and undistinguished record of OSHA violations, child labor and other labor law violations, immigration violations, environmental violations, sexual and race harrassment suits, etc., you wont get my business.

The Wal-Marting of America may be good for the pocket book, but they are a long way from beng a good corporate citizen, if there is such a thing, and they certainly are not good for the vibrancy of a community.

Originally Posted by Paradise Lost

Half the things said here have no actual bearing on the drug selling itself.
I for one see this as a decent thing. Although, it's kind of two edged. First, you can have prescription and OTC name-brand drugs starting to be sold for less, or a sudden loss of some name-brand drugs from the market. Research money doesn't appear, and while it's obvious some drugs are way too damn expensive, you have to pay all the people for at or for the pharmaceutical companies something, plus, I'm sure the things that go into the pill aren't cheap either. And as most of you probably already know, the people who 'work for' Wal-Mart, hardly have this kind of luxury - unless of course these generic drugs are still being produced inside the US, I'd almost assume they have to be.

And on a side note, I know the actual Mom & Pop restaurant I work for would, on occasion, make Wal-Mart look good in dealing with employees (they're not bad people, they just employ terrible practices.) Wal-Mart's hardly the only company that's skirted or completely broke the law when it's come to labour laws. This still doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the drug program they're introducing is a bad thing or not.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

When Wal-Mart comes into a community at the prevailing wage rate, rather than driving wages and benefits down, in part through illegal anti-union practices and other illegal employment practices too numerous to mention, I will applaud their efforts. Until then, I am not that impressed.

Originally Posted by stevo

What illegal anti-union practices might these be? just wondering because I didn't know it was illegal to be anti union

Originally Posted by ubertuber

For all of the bad things about their employment practices, Wal-Mart is pretty amazing in the logistical and supply process realm - and that's where a lot of their low prices are coming from. It's not all from the nasty things you see in the news.

Originally Posted by ubertuber

For all of the bad things about their employment practices, Wal-Mart is pretty amazing in the logistical and supply process realm - and that's where a lot of their low prices are coming from. It's not all from the nasty things you see in the news.

Originally Posted by NY Times

September 22, 2006
News Analysis
Relief for Some but Maybe Not Many in Wal-Mart Plan for $4 Generic Drugs
By MICHAEL BARBARO and REED ABELSON

At first glance, Wal-Mart’s plan to sharply cut the cost of generic drugs, to $4, seems like a signal event in American health care. It could make scores of treatments affordable to the uninsured, reduce the burden on Medicaid and bring competitive pricing to the pharmacy industry.

Even company critics have praised the plan, conceding that it represents a case of the giant retailer using its size and ability to wring out costs to improve the lives of regular Americans.

But a close examination of the program, with details confirmed by the company yesterday, suggests that its impact could be blunted by several factors.

The plan, which is said to cover 300 drugs, includes only about 124 separate medicines in various dosages, like 12 versions of the popular antibiotic amoxicillin. It leaves out some popular drugs altogether, like the generic version of the cholesterol-lowering treatment Zocor.

And while uninsured people should benefit from the program, those with insurance may save only a dollar or so, making a trip to Wal-Mart not worth their while, analysts said. In Florida, where the program will have its debut, most people on Medicaid pay nothing and may have little incentive to shop around for cheaper prescription drugs.

“It is not as significant as it first seems, in our opinion,” said Joseph Agnese, an analyst at Standard & Poor’s, who expressed surprise at investors’ reaction to the Wal-Mart announcement, which sent shares of its competitors CVS and Walgreen down sharply yesterday.

As it has for dozens of consumer products, Wal-Mart reduced prices of generic prescription drugs by attacking the few remaining pockets of inefficiency in its operations. For example, it cut out third-party distributors that stood between the chain and drug manufacturers.

“There is a huge profit margin in the generics” for the middlemen like pharmacy benefit managers, the distributors and the pharmacies themselves, said Patricia Wilson of Associates & Wilson, a Rosemont, Pa., health care consulting firm. Wal-Mart appears to be taking some of those profits from the traditional middlemen to lower the prices it is charging for these generic drugs.

The company also introduced rapid, automated machines into its pharmacy distribution centers that had long relied on workers to fill orders. In doing so, Wal-Mart reduced the amount of time that costly drugs sat in warehouses, rather than on store shelves where they could create revenue. “It is not glamorous,” said Bill Simon, an executive vice president at Wal-Mart. “It’s pennies at a time.”

Wal-Mart said that by covering one-fifth of the generic drugs it prescribes at its more than 3,000 United States pharmacies, the new program would make it possible for thousands of people to buy drugs they either cannot afford or currently ration, sometimes by cutting pills in half, to cut costs.

Under the plan, which will begin in the Tampa, Fla., area — and the company says will eventually expand to the rest of the country beginning next year — the $4 fee charged by Wal-Mart will be paid by a combination of consumers, insurance companies and the federal government, depending on a person’s health coverage. On average, generic drugs are now sold at retail for $10 to $30 for a 30-day supply.

An insured customer will not pay more than $4, no matter what the co-payment is, the company said. Wal-Mart would bill the insurer for the difference if the co-payment was below $4. Customers whose co-payment is above $4 are unlikely to use insurance, but pay for the drug out of pocket. Where required, Medicaid users would still pay a small co-payment for a prescription drug, with the government billed the balance. In the past, Wal-Mart might have billed the government significantly more than $4 for a generic drug. “It’s a tremendous savings for state Medicaid,” said Mr. Simon, the Wal-Mart executive.

But Christa Calamas, secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, said the state would probably save money only on those Medicaid consumers who already fill prescriptions at Wal-Mart. Since most Florida Medicaid users pay nothing for their prescriptions, they are likely to choose convenient pharmacy locations over lower prices, experts said.

Wal-Mart said it would not lose money on the low-cost generic drugs — and, in fact, several industry analysts predicted the company’s pharmacy business would benefit from the new plan. Unlike CVS or Walgreen, which rely on prescription sales for most of their revenues, Wal-Mart’s pharmacy business represents less than 10 percent of its total revenue and the company has identified it as an area that needs improvement.

By luring customers of all incomes into the store at least once a month to fill generic drug prescriptions, Wal-Mart could increase overall pharmacy and store sales, these analysts said.

Health care analysts were quick to point out that Wal-Mart has carefully chosen which drugs it will cover — 300 out of roughly 11,000 generic drugs available. Moreover, it is not offering some expensive drugs, like any of the cholesterol-lowering statins, at the $4 price. And some of the drugs covered, like generic ibuprofen, cost very little and may be currently available for less than $4. “They are not losing money on all these products,” said Ms. Wilson, the health care consultant.

But she praised Wal-Mart for bringing attention to the cost savings available from generic drugs, which are significantly less expensive than their branded counterparts. Wal-Mart could also introduce much greater competition to the marketplace by pushing the concept of discounts into what has traditionally been an inefficient market. “People will begin to compare prices,” she said.

Wal-Mart has come under fierce attack for its employee health benefits; critics contend the benefits are too costly, given the typical Wal-Mart worker’s wages, and frequently force employees to rely on state programs or forgo coverage altogether. With the lower generic drug prices, which apply to its workers as well as customers, the company appears to be trying to address those concerns.

Still, critics say this plan does little to confront the high costs of health care for the uninsured, including Wal-Mart employees, since they still face the expense of going to a doctor to get a prescription, for example. While the plan is a good first step, “it is clearly as much a public relations effort as a substantive change,” said Ron Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a Washington consumer group that has often criticized Wal-Mart’s health care offerings.

Wal-Mart’s chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., said that “competition and market forces have been absent from our health care system, and that has hurt working families tremendously.” The company, he added, is “excited to take the lead in doing what we do best — driving costs out of the system — and passing those savings to our customers and associates,” as Wal-Mart refers to its employees.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Do you not see the difference between small businesses struggling to survive and a company making in the neighborhood of $10 billion/yr. in profits, willing to ignore the law and write off fines as the cost of doing business?

I am all for capitalism and making a buck, but when you have a long and undistinguished record of OSHA violations, child labor and other labor law violations, immigration violations, environmental violations, sexual and race harrassment suits, etc., you wont get my business.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When you consider all employment related law, it is virtually impossible for an employer to be in compliance 100% of the time, no matter how big or small.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace...when you can point to any other company - multi-national, national, or local - with a record of employment violations, environmental violations, and other violations that approach Wal-Mart's absymal record, we can continue this discussion.

Originally Posted by roachboy

sigh.

ace, we wet around about walmart already in another thread--the arguments against your position outlined there fully obtain here as well.
you choose for whatever reason to separate pricing from other factors that enable/condition it.
you do not provide any basis for making this separation, you simply assume that you can talk about walmart using an economics 101 type framework and have claims you make appear coherent.

well, if one does not accept your assumptions, then your conclusions dont make sense.

all that is happening here (again) is that you and other folk are talking byeach other because there is no agreement on how to look at something like walmart--whether the game rules are such that walmart's pricing can be understood to the exclusion of its distribution processes, its labour practices, its routine occupation of the bottom of the barrel in terms of wage levels, etc etc etc.

your position seems to be: anything goes.

but if that is your position, then i dont see the point of the thread because there is nothing to discuss. you think walmart is a dandy company. you think capitalism is chock full of dandy companies and that the social consequences of capitalist activity are like facts of nature.

i find that kind of position totally indefensable.
you dont.
i try to talk about how you get to your arguments.
you repeat the arguments.

what is there to discuss about that if you wont put the premises upon which you build your arguments up for discussion?

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here are three Econ 101 questions that beg an answer.

1)Who does Walmart compete with, "mom an pop" or other large corporations?

2)Why do people work at Walmart if conditions are so bad?

3)If Walmart is a poor corporate citizen, why are communities allowing new stores to be built?

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Without going into the kind of detail that would put my job at risk, I'll back this point up by saying that there is some fantastic technology at work here, and Walmart is basically forcing all of their suppliers to adopt it if they want to continue doing business. I work with numerous companies that make things sold by Walmart, and they all have to include this technology with every shipment. It allows Walmart to track every shipment and purchase and stay ahead of demand so that stores never run out of hot items - unless it's the new Tickle Me Elmo.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Who do you work for? Let's start there. You give me the name and I will research violations/lawsuits/etc. and post them.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What a lame cop-out to avoid the facts about Walmart's record! :lol:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

1. Walmart competes with both mom and pop, midsize, and other large coporations.

2. In some places walmart is the major employer and pays the most out of retail jobs.

3. There are places like NYC where Walmart is currently not welcome for many different reasons. The local community boards here are quite strong and can stop things like state liquor licenses to zoning code variances. People think that Walmart is far from New York City, but there is one in Secaucus, NJ just 3 miles from Midtown Manhattan.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Without going into the kind of detail that would put my job at risk, I'll back this point up by saying that there is some fantastic technology at work here, and Walmart is basically forcing all of their suppliers to adopt it if they want to continue doing business. I work with numerous companies that make things sold by Walmart, and they all have to include this technology with every shipment. It allows Walmart to track every shipment and purchase and stay ahead of demand so that stores never run out of hot items - unless it's the new Tickle Me Elmo.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't deny Walmart's troubles - my point is that their troubles are not unique. You say that you have worked in situations that are as bad or worse than those at Walmart. (uh....No, I didnt) I had no clue of your circumstance but I threw out a challenge and your response supports my view. You made a choice to work in the conditions where you took employment. You weighed the pros and cons and made a decision. Why don't you think Walmart employees capable of doing the same?

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace...you are delusional if you think my response supports your view. You clearly dont want to acknowledge the facts and prefer tossing out simplistic, unsupportable arguments that defy reality..

One thing I learned working in the Senate was when someone with an opposing political view becomes petutlant and obstinate, its impossible to have a reasoned and rational discussion.

Carrry on.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You stated your first job was with the Senate where you worked long hours (perhaps there were minimum wage issues *wrong* , perhaps lack of proper breaks and lunch period *wrong*, perhaps no overtime compliance *wrong*, to name a few). Many Senate jobs are based on cronyism *wrong*. Sexual harassement is a chronic problem *wrong*, not too mention all the potential OSHA violations in cramped working quarters *wrong*, etc.


Worse has been said about me, my views and my approach to debate. I also know that Galileo was subject to worse, and was proved to be 100% correct.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Galileo would be turning over in his grave at such intellectual dishonesty.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Walmart did not invent the national chain store. Why didn't people hate Sears back in the days when they did the same thing Walmart is doing today? Why don't they hate McDonald's, etc?