colin Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Lets let Wal Mart executives decide those issues because doctors just don't get it.If Wal Mart can decide not to dispense medicine A, there is no reason why some other pharmacy couldn't refuse to dispense medicine B. Sooner or later they'll get to a medicine that you need and maybe then you'll give a damn. 597075[/snapback] yes yes, this is of course what will happen. there is no possibility of freedom of choice for drug vendors. if they are given any say in what they themselves carry then they would never carry drugs that consumers desire. after all, they are only after a profit and wouldn't EVER take advantage of a market segment not covered by their competitors because that would help them make a prof, er, uh. hmmm i was about to type that i might have found a hole in your logic, but your argument is more like tiny logic island floating in a giant see of emotive reactoinary ignorance. do you have the slightest idea of how business is run, or how competition works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 The medications at issue can be of value in treating other conditions besides pregnancy but why should we listen to doctors, what the eff do they know? Lets let Wal Mart executives decide those issues because doctors just don't get it.If Wal Mart can decide not to dispense medicine A, there is no reason why some other pharmacy couldn't refuse to dispense medicine B. Sooner or later they'll get to a medicine that you need and maybe then you'll give a damn. I won't even bother to bring up that what they are doing is specifically illegal in a number of states but why should a little thing like breaking the law matter? Clearly, that no longer matters to the right anymore. As for your analogy, it certainly was obvious, obviously stupid. You see, labor unions are large institutions too. So you proposed an analogy using two powerful institutions pitted against one another in a discussion about large institutions and individuals. 597075[/snapback] The portion about my post about pregnancy was made (partially) in jest. It was not meant to stir up rancor. I certainly never suggested in my posts that WalMart be trusted over doctors. I never really discussed the specific topic at all, just the general topic. As for your unbelievably rude analysis of my analogy, I have two comments: 1. I never even typed the word union. I discussed management versus labor and institutions versus "individuals". Surely you understand that the WalMart case was brought by a group, not a true individual. How would you, almighty one, define "individual? How big must the group become to no longer be an individual? If the state must always "look out for the individual" would this not give rise to similar transgressions from the other side? Shouldn't a judge, judge? The ebb and flow between mangement and labor (or institutions and individuals) is actually quite healthy IMO. 2. I am used to you taking pieces of my arguments, implying some meaning that was never there, and arguing against the implied meaning. You usually don't call me (or the bastardized version of my argument) stupid. For that you can go eff yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 yes yes, this is of course what will happen. there is no possibility of freedom of choice for drug vendors. if they are given any say in what they themselves carry then they would never carry drugs that consumers desire. after all, they are only after a profit and wouldn't EVER take advantage of a market segment not covered by their competitors because that would help them make a prof, er, uh. 597101[/snapback] This is a weak argument. Walmart "thinks" that they already have freedom of choice and "IS" bypassing a market segment and bypassing profit on moral grounds. Which, by the way, is illegal in the state of Mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 2. I am used to you taking pieces of my arguments, implying some meaning that was never there, and arguing against the implied meaning. You usually don't call me (or the bastardized version of my argument) stupid. For that you can go eff yourself. 597111[/snapback] You mean, the guy who hates when posters get personal with him is getting personal with other posters? I think there is a term for that...I can't rememb....oh, wait...hypocrite. That is it. As far as the first part of this paragraph, it is typical dishonesty from the Mickster. Nothing suprising. Pretty soon he will be blaming the right-wingers for him losing his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 I think he eve worked in the mail room. German industry enthusiastically and without anyones gun to their heads, bought up Jewish owned factories and equipment at a fraction fo their worth. Careful on the slave labor stuff. The Germans considered non-Aryan civilians working under contracts they signed under threat of being sent to penal camps to be "free" labor. Such labor was available long before war broke out. From 1933 on, Krupp and others were good little nazi industrialists. Were they following orders? To some extent, sure they were. "I was just following orders" is not a defense anyone but a fascist recognizes as valid. Besides, they had lots of choices within the framework of what the Reich wanted built. They chose what to feed or not feed their slave laborers. Do you really equate pharmacy regulations in the US with Hitler and his war criminal industrial sycophants? 596837[/snapback] Uh, wait a minute...you're the one who insisted that German Fascism put the rights of corporations ahead of those of individuals. I think US Pharmaceutical regs are fine as they are, I just think Plan B should be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Uh, wait a minute...you're the one who insisted that German Fascism put the rights of corporations ahead of those of individuals. I think US Pharmaceutical regs are fine as they are, I just think Plan B should be illegal. 597234[/snapback] Then if the public agrees with you, it should be legislated by the government -- not by Wal Mart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 This is a weak argument. Walmart "thinks" that they already have freedom of choice and "IS" bypassing a market segment and bypassing profit on moral grounds. Which, by the way, is illegal in the state of Mass. 597227[/snapback] my argument isn't that any of this is legal or not (although walmart's position on this might change the court's mind), but that it is silly to say that if the government doesn't force pharmacies to carry drugs, no one will carry them. the government don't force anyone to carry illegal narcotics, but they are still sold on a regular basis. could this be because of supply and demand? no, no of course not. that's just another weak argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Then if the public agrees with you, it should be legislated by the government -- not by Wal Mart. 597238[/snapback] But then again, the pharmacy regs could be unjust, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 But then again, the pharmacy regs could be unjust, too. 597245[/snapback] Didn't you just say this? I think US Pharmaceutical regs are fine as they are, I just think Plan B should be illegal. 597234[/snapback] I'm going to forget this. It stands for itself. How many sets of rules does Wal Mart get to play by? Is Wal Mart right because the regs are unjust (so they can break the law)? Or should they obey the law unless/until it's changed like the rest of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Didn't you just say this? I'm going to forget this. It stands for itself. How many sets of rules does Wal Mart get to play by? Is Wal Mart right because the regs are unjust (so they can break the law)? Or should they obey the law unless/until it's changed like the rest of us? 597272[/snapback] I'm saying *I* think they're OK, but others might not agree. They should obey the law or have it changed. don't pretend you're smarter than you really are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Here is a thought. How about the doctors having their own pharmacy in their office? If they want to prescribe the medication, they need to supply the medication. It solves the problem of the government forcing businesses to cut their profit margins in order to carry items that they do not want to carry. It also eliminates one entity (the doctors) forcing their morality on another entity (businesses). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Here is a thought. How about the doctors having their own pharmacy in their office? If they want to prescribe the medication, they need to supply the medication. It solves the problem of the government forcing businesses to cut their profit margins in order to carry items that they do not want to carry. It also eliminates one entity (the doctors) forcing their morality on another entity (businesses). 597280[/snapback] Pharmacies do not want to lose the business and they have a powerful lobby from Wal Mart to Eckard's to every grocery store chain you can name. People getting prescriptions is great walk-in business creating lots of foot traffic. Much, much money to be made. Those businesses wouldn't just lose all these oh-so-painful moral choices being mercilessly forced upon them, they would lose the business period. If faced with that choice, Wal Mart would change their minds faster than you can say Pat Robertson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 don't pretend you're smarter than you really are 597278[/snapback] Cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Cute. 597595[/snapback] I'm glad you approve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Here's something right along the lines of this topic. One stop shopping at Publix. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/13808587.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Here is a thought. How about the doctors having their own pharmacy in their office? If they want to prescribe the medication, they need to supply the medication. It solves the problem of the government forcing businesses to cut their profit margins in order to carry items that they do not want to carry. It also eliminates one entity (the doctors) forcing their morality on another entity (businesses). 597280[/snapback] Indeed. I also suspect most of us have sat in a Dr's waiting room and watched the cutsie-pie pharmaceutical rep wiggle her fanny into the office to drop off free pills and travel brochures while we paying customers look at our watches and realize that our already-late appointment times will get longer still. And what the heck does an "emergency" need for contraceptive pills mean in the first place??? I suggest that said cluck be chastized for her appaling lack of appreciating when her Rx runs out. Barring that basic ability, how about she keeps her pants on for a day or so, or even getting into a car and going elsewhere if she is dripping for it so much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 The portion about my post about pregnancy was made (partially) in jest. It was not meant to stir up rancor. I certainly never suggested in my posts that WalMart be trusted over doctors. I never really discussed the specific topic at all, just the general topic. As for your unbelievably rude analysis of my analogy, I have two comments: 1. I never even typed the word union. I discussed management versus labor and institutions versus "individuals". Surely you understand that the WalMart case was brought by a group, not a true individual. How would you, almighty one, define "individual? How big must the group become to no longer be an individual? If the state must always "look out for the individual" would this not give rise to similar transgressions from the other side? Shouldn't a judge, judge? The ebb and flow between mangement and labor (or institutions and individuals) is actually quite healthy IMO. 2. I am used to you taking pieces of my arguments, implying some meaning that was never there, and arguing against the implied meaning. You usually don't call me (or the bastardized version of my argument) stupid. For that you can go eff yourself. 597111[/snapback] My first response to you was short, impersonal and without insult, your response was insulting and accusatory. Not the first time I have tried to deal evenly with you and then had to put up with that and I'm tired of it so I decided it was no longer worth it trying to have a discussion with you. My first response: "I am not sure the pharmacy issue has anything to do with labor vs. management. It's sick people who need medicine vs. Wal Mart. In that one I am going with the sick people. I know, I'm just a crazy fascist." Your response, at least the a$$clown part of it: "...The analogy should have been obvious. Just in case it wasn't, I spelled it out. If it still isn't, feel free to substitute institutions vs individuals for any reference to management vs labor. You're smart enough to figure that out. Is your "sick people" vs WalMart an attempt to get me to accuse you of calling pregnancy a sickness? If so, consider the bait ignored. You are right, I don't usually call you or your argument stupid but since that is usually your response to me as was the case here, I decided to join in on your fun and adopt your style. It is very liberating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Uh, wait a minute...you're the one who insisted that German Fascism put the rights of corporations ahead of those of individuals. I think US Pharmaceutical regs are fine as they are, I just think Plan B should be illegal. 597234[/snapback] Lets see, slave labor, now what could that have to do with Nazis helping out German Industrialists...hmmm.....how would that relate to individuals, oh say the slaves for example, being taken advantage of by the Nazis for the benefit of German Industries....hmmmm.....I dunno, I'm stumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Pharmacies do not want to lose the business and they have a powerful lobby from Wal Mart to Eckard's to every grocery store chain you can name. People getting prescriptions is great walk-in business creating lots of foot traffic. Much, much money to be made. Those businesses wouldn't just lose all these oh-so-painful moral choices being mercilessly forced upon them, they would lose the business period. If faced with that choice, Wal Mart would change their minds faster than you can say Pat Robertson. 597551[/snapback] wha?!?!? you mean removing regulations can be a good thing?!!? what about your hand waving about what history has shown us and the like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 "I was about to type that I might have found a hole in your logic, but your argument is more like a tiny logic island floating in a giant sea of emotive reactionary ignorance." 597101[/snapback] colin, that is truly quotable - an astute observation applicable to many things. Seroiusly. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts