Wal*Mart Pharmacy Forced to Carry Drug

[niky]

Don't have much time this week... just dropping by to say one thing.

I think we did the wrong thing opening a school here... apparently, since a school is a business, I ought to go to the US, teach whatever I want, make money off of it, and no one can tell me what I'm teaching is wrong...

It's health care for God's sake. I know they're over-the-counter medication, and not life-saving, or anything, but standards should be made and kept. If you want to make money, get in a profitable business.

My grandfather once said, if you want to make money, stick it in stocks, but if you want to make a little money while serving the community, make a school. There are businesses where profit isn't (gasp) the bottom line, nor should it be. Profit is just a bonus.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think we did the wrong thing opening a school here... apparently, since a school is a business, I ought to go to the US, teach whatever I want, make money off of it, and no one can tell me what I'm teaching is wrong...

We have private schools in the US that do perform better than the public schools. If I can afford it I will send my child to a private school. The private and religious schools in my area tend to hold their students to a higher standard than most of the public schools. There are only a handfull of publis schools that can compete but if you don't live in that disctrict you can't get your student in.

I dated a girl who went to a Catholic school and she started college halfway through her sophmore year. I agree, you should start a private school.

It's health care for God's sake. I know they're over-the-counter medication, and not life-saving, or anything, but standards should be made and kept. If you want to make money, get in a profitable business.

Wal-Mart is a profitable business, currently the most profitable in the US. To me over-the-counter drugs are not health care in the sense an emergency room is. Nothing you buy over-the-counter will save your life, but will only treat symptoms until whatever the cause is has passed. Contraception is like a Band-Aid; you don't need it but it is smart to have it. Why is it that other products that aren't carried aren't causing an alarm or different products not being available in other pharmacies isn't an issue?

Plenty of people seem to have no problem supporting this decision against Wal*Mart but no one has answered my questions about other pharmacies. I could go store to store making them all carry everything, no matter how obscure, and get rich doing it. Why don't I? Because I think it would be immoral, stupid, and a waste of everyone's time.

When the medical system in our country becomes socialized then every pharamacy can be told what to carry, but until that day it is a private business and they can run that business as they see fit as far as I am concerned.

There are businesses where profit isn't (gasp) the bottom line, nor should it be. Profit is just a bonus.

If it isn't a non-profit or a charity then they are lying. Profit is always a bottom line at some point or you will no longer exist as a commercial enterprise. That is how capitalism works.

 

[Keef]

Most American entreprenuers don't "serve the community", Niky. And if they are, they're doing it involuntarily. Most business owners just want to make money. Aren't churches supposed to be non-profit? We have a church just down the highway from my city where there is a 40 foot tall bust of Jesus with his hands raised, supposedly praying to God, though it looks like he's yelling for help because he's sinking in the pond that surrounds him. This statue cost millions. That same pastor also has one of the largest homes and ranches within city limits. Now, couldn't he use that money to help poor people or homeless people? He's just sucking it out of the people who go to his church, and they don't realize it.
Nearly everybody in this country is about money, money, money. Some do better than others, obviously.

 

[FoolKiller]

He's just sucking it out of the people who go to his church, and they don't realize it.

Any church without a finance committee and treasurer separate from the pastor are asking to be taken advantage of.

 

[Swift]

Any church without a finance committee and treasurer separate from the pastor are asking to be taken advantage of.

That's why our church is incorporated

 

[Keef]

I don't go to church at all, but I think the way he uses his money is very uncool. You should see the place, It looks like something out of Arabian Nights it's so extravagant. But it's a Catholic church, or Christian, or whatever.

 

[Swift]

I don't go to church at all, but I think the way he uses his money is very uncool. You should see the place, It looks like something out of Arabian Nights it's so extravagant. But it's a Catholic church, or Christian, or whatever.

There was a thread about that in the opinions forum a while back. I do remember that and I think it's a complete waste of money. Especially for a church.

 

[niky]

I dated a girl who went to a Catholic school and she started college halfway through her sophmore year. I agree, you should start a private school.

Actually, we do own a Catholic School. Though I can't for the life of me, get them to make tartan-checked mini-skirts the official uniform... maybe next year.

We do want to break into the US market, it's pretty rich, and we can offer services at lower prices than American institutions and comparable quality... (heck, we have alumni who topped local US licensing boards).

Wal-Mart is a profitable business, currently the most profitable in the US. To me over-the-counter drugs are not health care in the sense an emergency room is. Nothing you buy over-the-counter will save your life, but will only treat symptoms until whatever the cause is has passed. Contraception is like a Band-Aid; you don't need it but it is smart to have it. Why is it that other products that aren't carried aren't causing an alarm or different products not being available in other pharmacies isn't an issue?

Plenty of people seem to have no problem supporting this decision against Wal*Mart but no one has answered my questions about other pharmacies. I could go store to store making them all carry everything, no matter how obscure, and get rich doing it. Why don't I? Because I think it would be immoral, stupid, and a waste of everyone's time.

When the medical system in our country becomes socialized then every pharamacy can be told what to carry, but until that day it is a private business and they can run that business as they see fit as far as I am concerned.

Good point about every other product... 👍

I guess it's not just a business issue (otherwise pharmacies would be forced to carry every kind of condom or bandage on the planet), it's an ideological issue. Both the Religious Right and the Reproductive Rights Group have been fighting it out over the "morning-after" pill for years now. Thanks to some strong representation in other states, the Religious Right has been winning this war. This one's just returning fire, and Walmart gets caught in the middle.

It's a question not just of Government in business, but also of Religion and health care, and whether any lobby group should be able to force the exclusion of a product from consumers, whether through influencing Government policy or through directly influencing businesses. It's not just government vs. business, it's religion vs. reproductive rights... and so far, religion is winning.

I don't really like Government interference in business, either, but if you can force pharmacies not to sell by blackmail, guilt-tripping, or the like, that's interference with consumer's rights, isn't it? And if no one will sell because they're afraid of being boycotted, is that a decision based on sound business practice, or coercion?

The condom issue I mentioned is a real one, though. I'm not sure if it's danoff who asked why we're spending so much on AIDS research when condoms will do the job? It's because lobbyists and activists from religious groups are blocking condom distribution and use by pressuring the governments involved. This was an issue in the US as late as 2002, when the administration removed information on condom usage from the Center for Disease Control website. It's back now, though... I've checked. In Africa and parts of Asia, it's still an issue, and millions of people are caught in the crossfire.

Strange, you'd expect that they'd want more Christians to stay alive.

 

[Keef]

Who needs condoms!? Just find yourself a nice, ripe virgin girl (a nerdy one, they're the tastiest) and exercise some bodily control; it's all good!

Uh oh, I'm gonna get "owned" for that one... I was just kidding?


Oh, Oh! I just saw that last sentence and wondered "Now, is it the Catholics or Christians I despise?" I can't remember; who does the little boys again?

All that jargon is all I soaked up from the previous posts. Condoms and Christians, that all I heard.

 

[niky]

Who needs condoms!? Just find yourself a nice, ripe virgin girl (a nerdy one, they're the tastiest) and exercise some bodily control; it's all good!

You missed "fluid". If you were exercising bodily control, you wouldn't need a virgin, you could get off by tantric concentration.

Oh, Oh! I just saw that last sentence and wondered "Now, is it the Catholics or Christians I despise?" I can't remember; who does the little boys again?

Catholics... Protestant Ministers just cheat with other women, it's Catholic priests that specifically go after little boys.

All that jargon is all I soaked up from the previous posts. Condoms and Christians, that all I heard.

Aw poop... don't make me write that again... it's too hard to think with a condom stretched over my head....

 

[Omnis]

Most American entreprenuers don't "serve the community", Niky. And if they are, they're doing it involuntarily. Most business owners just want to make money. Aren't churches supposed to be non-profit? We have a church just down the highway from my city where there is a 40 foot tall bust of Jesus with his hands raised, supposedly praying to God, though it looks like he's yelling for help because he's sinking in the pond that surrounds him. This statue cost millions. That same pastor also has one of the largest homes and ranches within city limits. Now, couldn't he use that money to help poor people or homeless people? He's just sucking it out of the people who go to his church, and they don't realize it.
Nearly everybody in this country is about money, money, money. Some do better than others, obviously.

Do you live in Arkansas? I swear I saw that statue over there. It's like right on the highway and crap. I either saw it there or here on GTP. Haha.

 

[kennythebomb]

Catholics... Protestant Ministers just cheat with other women, it's Catholic priests that specifically go after little boys.

Rather interesting place to put a smiley!

 

[FoolKiller]

In an attempt to get the thread back on topic:

I guess it's not just a business issue (otherwise pharmacies would be forced to carry every kind of condom or bandage on the planet), it's an ideological issue.

Bingo! Ideology, especially religious, has no place in the regulation of business. Actually I think government in general shouldn' be in the business of regulating business.

Both the Religious Right and the Reproductive Rights Group have been fighting it out over the "morning-after" pill for years now. Thanks to some strong representation in other states, the Religious Right has been winning this war.

I have to say I disagree. If the religious right were winning the war the morning after pill wouldn't even be available at all. As it is it has become legal in the states and then gained over-the-counter approval by the FDA. Now, if we were talking RU-486, "the abortion pill", then I would definitely agree with you. The pro-life groups have tried to label the morning-after pill as an abortion pill and allow it to become confused with RU-486, but it isn't even close.

This one's just returning fire, and Walmart gets caught in the middle.

It's a question not just of Government in business, but also of Religion and health care, and whether any lobby group should be able to force the exclusion of a product from consumers, whether through influencing Government policy or through directly influencing businesses. It's not just government vs. business, it's religion vs. reproductive rights... and so far, religion is winning.

I don't really like Government interference in business, either, but if you can force pharmacies not to sell by blackmail, guilt-tripping, or the like, that's interference with consumer's rights, isn't it? And if no one will sell because they're afraid of being boycotted, is that a decision based on sound business practice, or coercion?

Well, I think that in the case of Wal*Mart is it just goes along with not carrying certain types of entertainment if it can be considered offensive. They know that their customer base is lower-income religious people and they play to them by creating corporate policies that agree with their morals. If their customer base doesn't approve of the morning-after pill then they won't carry it from the beginning. It sends the message that Wal*Mart understands them and agrees with them. Wal*Mart's message to this customer base is, "We won't offend your morals. By the way, we have a great deal on shotguns."

The condom issue I mentioned is a real one, though. I'm not sure if it's danoff who asked why we're spending so much on AIDS research when condoms will do the job? It's because lobbyists and activists from religious groups are blocking condom distribution and use by pressuring the governments involved. This was an issue in the US as late as 2002, when the administration removed information on condom usage from the Center for Disease Control website. It's back now, though... I've checked. In Africa and parts of Asia, it's still an issue, and millions of people are caught in the crossfire.

I haven't seen the condom issue affect stores. I can't think of a single pharmacy that doesn't carry them. Heck, even some small groceries have them in the health and beauty section, across from shaving supplies. Maybe KY Jelly works better than shaving cream?

As for things like the pope telling Africans not to use condoms; I think that he is condeming them to a short, diseased life in the name of morality.

 

[niky]

Bingo! Ideology, especially religious, has no place in the regulation of business. Actually I think government in general shouldn' be in the business of regulating business.

agree 👍 on ideology, although I do think that government should set standards, but then, there's always areas where they shouldn't go. It's a slippery slope. I happen to think that some control is good, at least with regards to quality of service, as, being in two or three businesses myself, I see a lot of abuse of laxity in regulations, both by friends and by competitors.

One of the dumber ways government here has tried to corral us is a proposal that students actually have a say in tuition fee proposals. Which is preposterous, as it would allow the customer to dictate that we provide premium quality service at peanuts pricing. Glad that didn't get passed.

I have to say I disagree. If the religious right were winning the war the morning after pill wouldn't even be available at all. As it is it has become legal in the states and then gained over-the-counter approval by the FDA. Now, if we were talking RU-486, "the abortion pill", then I would definitely agree with you. The pro-life groups have tried to label the morning-after pill as an abortion pill and allow it to become confused with RU-486, but it isn't even close.

Hmmm.... I'm personally against the abortion pill, but that's personal bias... can't say I'm not glad that they're winning that one, though... (ooh, how hypocritical of me! )

Well, I think that in the case of Wal*Mart is it just goes along with not carrying certain types of entertainment if it can be considered offensive. They know that their customer base is lower-income religious people and they play to them by creating corporate policies that agree with their morals. If their customer base doesn't approve of the morning-after pill then they won't carry it from the beginning. It sends the message that Wal*Mart understands them and agrees with them. Wal*Mart's message to this customer base is, "We won't offend your morals. By the way, we have a great deal on shotguns."

Sure you're not a closet liberal??? Good quote.

I haven't seen the condom issue affect stores. I can't think of a single pharmacy that doesn't carry them. Heck, even some small groceries have them in the health and beauty section, across from shaving supplies. Maybe KY Jelly works better than shaving cream?

As for things like the pope telling Africans not to use condoms; I think that he is condeming them to a short, diseased life in the name of morality.

There is some commonality with the "morning after" pill. It's a good way for first-time virgins who aren't ready for or capable of motherhood to rectify what could be a horrible, horrible mistake. Their lives may not become short and diseased, but many of them won't be able to cope.

It's impossible to stop or curb condoms in the US at this point, but it's amazing that there was actually some effort by the administration to limit condom awareness. Of course, the CDC finally made the compromise of advocating abstinence first and then condoms.

Just as Government shouldn't put businesses on puppet strings, religion shouldn't interfere with Government... which started the whole thing in the first place.

 

[Danoff]

I guess it's not just a business issue (otherwise pharmacies would be forced to carry every kind of condom or bandage on the planet), it's an ideological issue. Both the Religious Right and the Reproductive Rights Group have been fighting it out over the "morning-after" pill for years now. Thanks to some strong representation in other states, the Religious Right has been winning this war. This one's just returning fire, and Walmart gets caught in the middle.

"Returning fire" isn't necessarily the right thing to do when you're playing the same game they are. It's a game of oppression. The religious right wants to prevent many medical procedures/research from being legal in the first place. They would sacrifice the rights of mothers (who we know for certain are living human beings) for the sake of an unborn fetus. They would sacrifice the rights of researchers and the benefits of that research for the sake of a clump of cells - all based on religious ideology in a country that's supposed to treat its citizens (of all religions) the same.

If "returning fire" means oppressing business owners by forcing them to sell certain products, then I'm not on board. If "returning fire" means blocking these laws from getting passed in the first place, I'm with you.

It's a question not just of Government in business, but also of Religion and health care, and whether any lobby group should be able to force the exclusion of a product from consumers, whether through influencing Government policy or through directly influencing businesses. It's not just government vs. business, it's religion vs. reproductive rights... and so far, religion is winning.

Business owners have rights. They're citizens, not government, and we can't simply vote away their rights. Walmart isn't the government preventing people to have access to these pills, they're a private business (that's publicly traded) and they control their own inventory and how they sell it. There is a difference between ordering the government around and ordering your neighbor around.

I don't really like Government interference in business, either, but if you can force pharmacies not to sell by blackmail, guilt-tripping, or the like, that's interference with consumer's rights, isn't it?

No. Do I have a right, as a consumer, to force a business to sell me products? Of course not, that would be a violation of the business owner's rights. My rights don't include violating the rights of others. If my rights included the ability to push other people around, it means I have more rights than them - which means the government isn't following our consitution with prescribes that all citizens be treated equally under the law.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sure you're not a closet liberal??? Good quote.

Trust me, that is a confusion that not many will make.

I agree with Wal*Mart's right to sell what they want. If they don't want explicit lyrics in the CDs they sell then more power to them. It sounds hypocritical to limit CDs like that and then sell shotguns to anyone over 16, but their main customer base is Bible Belt hunters. Many religious conservatives, myself included, also believe in the right to own a gun.

Don't get me wrong though, I am not extreme by any means. I love a good violent movie or game and I don;t own a gun, but people have that right. I think it should the consumer''s decision on what content is in their entertainment sources, but Wal*Mart is a private company and can sell what they want. If the production companies disagreed with them they wouldn't have given them Wal*Mart approved versions.

Just as Government shouldn't put businesses on puppet strings, religion shouldn't interfere with Government... which started the whole thing in the first place.

I agree completely. 👍 I might be a Christian but I am not going to force anyone else to live that way.

 

[Pupik]

The government shouldn't be telling any private business they have to carry certain products.

I know, I find myself agreeing with WalMart for once.

No company, big or small, should be forced by the government, or anyone, to sell any product that they don't want to. People are allowed to vote with thier money if they feel otherwise.

There are gas stations/convience stores that do not sell tabacco and/or alcohol, and are proud of it. Nobody should force them to change their stand on the matter.

 

[niky]

If "returning fire" means oppressing business owners by forcing them to sell certain products, then I'm not on board. If "returning fire" means blocking these laws from getting passed in the first place, I'm with you.

👍 Yeah, government really shouldn't have to do that.