Evil walmart cuts prices of drugs to americans.

[dude1394]

Keep on trashing walmart you stupid northeastern democrats.

TAMPA, Fla. (AP) - Wal-Mart announced today that it will start a test program in Florida, where it will sell generic prescription drugs for $4 for a 30-day supply. The test will start tomorrow in 65 Tampa Bay-area stores and is to expand to the whole state by January.

In a statement, CEO Lee Scott says the world's largest retailer intends to "take the program to as many states as possible next year."

On average, generic drugs tend to cost between $10 and $30 for a month-long supply.

The world's biggest retailer said that it will test the program in Florida that will make 291 generic drugs available, which are used to treat a variety of condition (sic) from allergies to high-blood pressure. It will also be available to the uninsured.

[Drbio]

Amazing program. May Walmart profit beyond belief as they help our seniors and citizens.

[Usually Lurkin]

Target is now in a price war with them.
Damn you, corporations!
Damn you, capitalism, you are only motivated by greed to get us what we want, how we want it. It would be much better if the redistribution of goods and services was performed through purely altruistic motivations fostered by government force and threat of prison.
If we distributed everything through government monopolies, why, we could keep prices up indefinitely, and quality could be kept at a minimum, and we could make people stand in long lines. and politicians would be more powerful. Isn't that really the Soviet- er, American dream??

[Mavdog]

walmart's getting a lot of press out of this. smiling faces all over bentonville.

these $4 drugs are generic only, so if the drug you are prescribed isn't available in a generic form it's regular price.

this is a great program for the uninsured, although a comparison I saw showed costco to already be at $3.99 for most of these generics.

prescription drugs, as a merchandising category, have been producing minimal profit for the big chains due to the agreements with the insurance providors. walmart decided to just give up any margin to speak of and use it as a marketing tool.

let's not hjowever make any claim that this program is benevolent in any way. it's meant to increase their business volume.

[MavKikiNYC]

Is there a generic drug for gullibility?

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

walmart's getting a lot of press out of this. smiling faces all over bentonville.

They should. This is a good announcement.

Originally Posted by mavdork

these $4 drugs are generic only, so if the drug you are prescribed isn't available in a generic form it's regular price.

What's your point? This is the same as single pharmacy in the US.

Originally Posted by mavdork

this is a great program for the uninsured, although a comparison I saw showed costco to already be at $3.99 for most of these generics.

This is a great announcement/program for the underinsured, the elderly, and anyone who must take medicine. I didn't know that about Costco if it is true, but I wish them well too if it is. Good for them.

Originally Posted by mavdork

prescription drugs, as a merchandising category, have been producing minimal profit for the big chains due to the agreements with the insurance providors. walmart decided to just give up any margin to speak of and use it as a marketing tool.

Damn brilliant move too.

Originally Posted by mavdevoid

let's not hjowever make any claim that this program is benevolent in any way.

It is benevolent in a sense that fixed income individuals and families will save money. Yours and other liberal biases should not try to make a negative where one so clearly does not exist.

Originally Posted by mavdork

it's meant to increase their business volume.

Well no shit sherlock. And here you thought Walmart was in business to lose money all those years.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

Is there a generic drug for gullibility?

Jack Daniels?

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

let's not hjowever make any claim that this program is benevolent in any way. it's meant to increase their business volume.

these aren't mutually exclusive

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Jack Daniels?

To prevent, not to induce.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

They should. This is a good announcement.

no, it's called marketing.

What's your point? This is the same as single pharmacy in the US.

uh, the point? as you don't make one yourself, or at least one that makes any sense, let me dumb it down for you: not every drug is available in a generic form. this marketing program will only affect those that ARE in a generic form.

This is a great announcement/program for the underinsured, the elderly, and anyone who must take medicine. I didn't know that about Costco if it is true, but I wish them well too if it is. Good for them.

again, it is good for those who are taking generics and are paying for the drugs themselves. otherwise it won't benefit them.

It is benevolent in a sense that fixed income individuals and families will save money. Yours and other liberal biases should not try to make a negative where one so clearly does not exist.

lmao! families will NOT save money if they are a) insured and b) taking meds that are not out in a generic form, or c) already buying their generic meds from costco for instance.

nope, no benevolence. none.

Well no shit sherlock. And here you thought Walmart was in business to lose money all those years.

oh, so it's NOT benevolent as you state above?

[kg_veteran]

I don't see why Walmart can't be both benevolent (in that they are trying to help their customers) and self-interested (in that they are trying to increase business) at the same time.

They aren't a charity; they are a business. That said, this does appear to me to be a move that will help their customers. It's great that Costco was already doing it, but Costco also requires an annual membership fee that Walmart doesn't, and let's be honest -- Walmart reaches a lot more consumers than any other pharmacy does. For them to offer this is a big deal because it increases the availability of the drugs to those that need them at a lower cost.

As for people with insurance, if you can get the drugs for $4, why would you waste your insurance money on it? Most co-pays are higher than that.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't see why Walmart can't be both benevolent (in that they are trying to help their customers) and self-interested (in that they are trying to increase business) at the same time.

I agree.

be-nev-o-lent 

–adjective

1. characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings: a benevolent attitude; her benevolent smile.

2. desiring to help others; charitable:

3. intended for benefits rather than profit: a benevolent institution.

So it just depends on how you look at it, or which definition you want to use. If you dont want to say they are "benevolent" you still have to admit that they are going to help a lot of people...and by profiting, they're helping their employees as well.

I dont know why people like to bash wal mart......

[Mavdog]

kg, it is a good philosphical discussion: can a business be benevolent while also making a profit.

in my view, the answer is no. the profit motive is opposite than a benevolent motive. if a business was truly benevolent, as flaco shows above, they should be "charitable" and "intended for benefits rather than profit". believe me, EVERYTHING that walmart decides to do is driven by the motive of profit. I've dealt with them and I can say, without hesitation, profit (and market share) is the mantra.

a business can have a profit motive while they contribute back to society. many firms do that very thing, yet it is not the same as their being benevolent.

as far as those with insurance and walmart's generic program, this is pretty much a zero sum. many co-pays are $5/script. many insured choose to not take generics and aren't forced to.

long and short, let's not place walmart on a pedestal for this initiative. a good program yes, it will help those who don't have coverage (like many of the part time walmart employees btw....)

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

no, it's called marketing.

Uh no it was an announcement of their new drug rates. But I can see where you had to retreat again.

Originally Posted by mavdoofus

uh, the point? as you don't make one yourself, or at least one that makes any sense, let me dumb it down for you: not every drug is available in a generic form. this marketing program will only affect those that ARE in a generic form.

You really are arking stupid aren't you? I made the crystal clear point that all pharmacies operate with generics and in cases where one isn't available they go non-formulary. Of course, I should have known better to address you in any way with words with more than three letters. I know how hard that gets for your ignorant ass.

Originally Posted by madretard

again, it is good for those who are taking generics and are paying for the drugs themselves. otherwise it won't benefit them.

Stupid is as stupid does. If someone is paying....say....$7 for generics and then Walmart drops the price to $4, they are receiving a benefit, but like logic, common sense and politics, math is apprently not your forte.

Originally Posted by mavdunce

lmao! families will NOT save money if they are a) insured and b) taking meds that are not out in a generic form, or c) already buying their generic meds from costco for instance.

They will save money if not insured, but you tried real hard to make an argument. Nice try, but again....stupid is as stupid does. But your commitment to retardation is amazing.

Originally Posted by mavdunce

nope, no benevolence. none.

nope, no intelligence or comprehension. none.

Originally Posted by mavdogshiteater

oh, so it's NOT benevolent as you state above?

Actually....your are wrong, but we all expected it so I can forgive you.

[Drbio]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I don't see why Walmart can't be both benevolent (in that they are trying to help their customers) and self-interested (in that they are trying to increase business) at the same time.

They aren't a charity; they are a business. That said, this does appear to me to be a move that will help their customers. It's great that Costco was already doing it, but Costco also requires an annual membership fee that Walmart doesn't, and let's be honest -- Walmart reaches a lot more consumers than any other pharmacy does. For them to offer this is a big deal because it increases the availability of the drugs to those that need them at a lower cost.

As for people with insurance, if you can get the drugs for $4, why would you waste your insurance money on it? Most co-pays are higher than that.

This is too common sensical for mavdog the retard to understand.

[Rhylan]

In theory I think Mavdog is right, there is no true alignment with a benevolent purpose when your first allegiance is your own existence as a business. Sure, you can shoot for both, but if push ever comes to shove, the business has to chose self-interest over benevolence. And rightfully so.

However, it's been proven time and again that self-interested businesses can have "side-effects" of their self-interest that benefit society.

Hell, our belief in capitalism is rooted in this idea... that a collection of competing self-interests create an environment where prosperity is the norm and quality of life is higher than under other economic systems.

[Drbio]

Walmart's business plan is to partner with their community even at the cost of "higher" profit. Make no bones about it, Walmart is in business to make money but the reason they do so well is they bring lower prices on goods to their local consumers and the business model that they have works and works well. Lower profits but craploads of sales and buying power makes money for the company and saves money for the consumer. Win-win.

People who bash Walmart are pissing into the wind.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Rhylan

In theory I think Mavdog is right, there is no true alignment with a benevolent purpose when your first allegiance is your own existence as a business. Sure, you can shoot for both, but if push ever comes to shove, the business has to chose self-interest over benevolence. And rightfully so.

However, it's been proven time and again that self-interested businesses can have "side-effects" of their self-interest that benefit society.

Hell, our belief in capitalism is rooted in this idea... that a collection of competing self-interests create an environment where prosperity is the norm and quality of life is higher than under other economic systems.

I pretty much agree with this.

Walmart has done some other things that I don't agree with, but this is definitely a good thing for the community.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Drbio

Uh no it was an announcement of their new drug rates. But I can see where you had to retreat again.

gee, I am not surprised that you don't grasp what "marketing" entails. it must be over your head....

You really are arking stupid aren't you? I made the crystal clear point that all pharmacies operate with generics and in cases where one isn't available they go non-formulary. Of course, I should have known better to address you in any way with words with more than three letters. I know how hard that gets for your ignorant ass.

"all pharmacies operate with generics"???? uh, don't bother take your head out of your ass due to it being there for so long, but here's a news flash: a patent must have expired for there to be a generic option. patent still valid = no generic option.

"non-formulary"??? that is a drug NOT preferred in an insurance plan, and they typically cost MORE.

wow. talk about "stupid is as stupid does"...thanks so much for proving it!

Stupid is as stupid does. If someone is paying....say....$7 for generics and then Walmart drops the price to $4, they are receiving a benefit, but like logic, common sense and politics, math is apprently not your forte.

They will save money if not insured, but you tried real hard to make an argument. Nice try, but again....stupid is as stupid does. But your commitment to retardation is amazing.

of course if they are already buying their script from, lets say, costco they are already paying the same as what walmart is now pricing them at. whoops, no benefit...

likewise, and try hard to concentrate so maybe you'll understand (or get a 10 year old to explain it to you), like I accurately said before, if they have insurance or are not using generics this new pricing policy will not benefit them. don't look now, but no benefit...

and there is no "benevolence" in this walmart policy, it's all about store volume and market share, which is what one would expect from walmart.

just like what one would expect from you, utter and complete nonsense. prove me right with your attempt at a retort...

[kg_veteran]

Mavdog - You almost seem to be saying that we should begrudge Walmart for doing this. You are certainly going out of your way to explain how insignificant it is.

[MavKikiNYC]

He's saying that it's like Brookshire's (or H.E.B) offering canned peaches at 2 for .59 in hopes of dragging in Ma and Pa Kettle, who just may also buy some more highly marked up cottage cheese and prune juice. That's all.

And I think he's right to that extent. It's fine, great even, that it's could benefit some people, but it's no more benevolently motivated than running a special to bring consumers in in hopes that they'll spend more.

Wal-Mart has PR-ed this very effectively as a quasi-social program, when in fact, it's just marketing the low prices for which they are already rightly both famous and infamous.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

He's saying that it's like Brookshire's (or H.E.B) offering canned peaches at 2 for .59 in hopes of dragging in Ma and Pa Kettle, who just may also buy some more highly marked up cottage cheese and prune juice.

That's all. And I think he's right to that extent. It's fine, great even, that it's could benefit some people, but it's no more benevolently motivated than running a special to bring consumers in.

Wal-Mart has PR-ed this very effectively as a quasi-social program, when in fact, it's just marekting the low prices for which they are already rightly both famous and infamous.

Again, I think that is a fair assessment. There's no question it's a PR campaign.

[Drbio]

Noone has said marketing and profits aren't part of this. mavclueless and his libidiot gang of retards are just bent on trying to make Walmart out to be a bad guy.

[Mavdog]

kg, then my mistake. it is a (imho) very strong marketing program that will reveberate through the pharmacy business.

what is interesting is the way wall street is viewing it: cvs and walgreen are down about 10 points, walmart down about 2 points, since the announcement was made. the street doesn't appear to like the program much.

it does put an uninsured person in position to get a script when they might very well have gone without, or perhaps take only part of what their doctor prescribed.

HOWEVER, it is an initiative that is meant to take market share away from their competitors, and not a charitable endeavor as some would try to paint it.

and no, walmart is not evil, just merciless....

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by MavKikiNYC

He's saying that it's like Brookshire's (or H.E.B) offering canned peaches at 2 for .59 in hopes of dragging in Ma and Pa Kettle, who just may also buy some more highly marked up cottage cheese and prune juice. That's all.

And I think he's right to that extent. It's fine, great even, that it's could benefit some people, but it's no more benevolently motivated than running a special to bring consumers in in hopes that they'll spend more.

Wal-Mart has PR-ed this very effectively as a quasi-social program, when in fact, it's just marketing the low prices for which they are already rightly both famous and infamous.

that is in essence why walmart is in the grocery business, and to an extent (with managed programs on presrciptions) in pharmacy business: sell the goods at breakeven to get the general merchandise items through the cash register.

GM is where the margin is, food/drugs is (for almost every grocer but whole foods) the slimmist of slim margins. a good grocery merchant will get a 1.5% net, where GM will be around 5% net.

with walmart, it is about volume.

and of course the abuse of their workers....

[Usually Lurkin]

Hey, I can understand trying to read the mind of a giant company like wal-mart - it makes the world an easier place to understand. You can say "no business would ever try to do something that is motivated by good will towards others, especially not a big, successful business." Then you have some nice and tidy badguys to hate (and if you are so inclined, the nice big bad guy of capitalism). But to say there is no goodwill whatsoever in the action, despite a good effect is simply being obtuse. In that, you are reading the minds of everyone involved in the decision making process, including any stockholder who might raise a voice. Maybe you have enough experience with Wal-Mart to say that there was not a single person thinking up the low-price idea, or pushing it through, or deciding on it to say that not one of them had an inkling of charity. I'd say that's pretty unlikely.

For all of you who think a company can't have good will and want to survive (or even dominate - gasp!) in a competitive marketplace - that's just not true. JCPenney, for example, still teaches its employees that they were founded as "the golden rule" store in response to bad service at clothiers 100 years ago.

[dalmations202]

Just as a question, and not meaning to derail the topic.

What is the difference in what Wal-mart does, and say Dell signing a contract with M$ to get M$ office for $21 a copy, when M$ sells OEM to businesses at $149 a copy, and to the general public for $299 a copy?

Doesn't this "volume" deal that Dell signed, put the smaller OEM computer businesses at a serious disadvantage when trying to "make a living"?

[dude1394]

Walmart is doing something beneficial in the community but also in their best interests. The US does this all of the time. They police much of the worlds shipping for example which is beneficial, yet also in their best interests. The two can easily be congruent.

I don't really care to be honest why they are doing. But I like it. It will drive the cost of medicine down and it will make the democrats look like the snooty leftcoasters that they are.

So it's in the best interests of american twice. Once for cheaper medicine the second to let the american people see how crazy the democrats are.