Evil Wal-Mart Bullies Evil Drug Companies
Posted October 2nd, 2006 by Chip Bok
Click Image to Enlarge.
In a bold bid for world domination, Wal-Mart will sell generic prescription drugs for $4.00.
This undercuts the United States world domination price of free. While technically lower than the Wal-Mart price it is posted in an unknown language.
Target says it will match Wal-Mart's price. Al Qaeda has yet to respond.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:53 pm
Wal-Mart testing the waters with $4 prescriptions sounded too good to be true. And it is to the extent that at the same time they
are capping employee salaries, decreasing full-time positions, and
increasing part-time postions. Meanwhile the 5 Walton heirs are
worth $ 15.5 billion dollars EACH.
Maybe they get their business model from David Black.
Cheap news cheap.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:30 am
Why is it impossible for you cranky libs to ever say anything nice.
Would you ike Walmart to drop the $4 prescription program?
October 3rd, 2006 at 4:00 am
Would you like Wal-Mart to pay a living wage ?
October 4th, 2006 at 12:04 am
No person is forced to take a job anywhere. If a person has no qualifications they must work for minimum wage or a little more.
In the case of Walmart, these lowere income people benefit greatly from Walmart prices including groceries.
People have hate big business are about as stupid as they come.
October 4th, 2006 at 4:06 am
"No person is forced to take a job anywhere"
"People have hate big business are about as stupid as they come."
You stupid folks out there, line up behind Slope.
October 4th, 2006 at 8:34 am
"You stupid folks out there, line up behind Slope."
I guess by stupid you must mean those who have a slightly better grasp of economics than yourself?
You leftists claim to be all about 'power to the people' yet you rail against the single most powerful force in history for raising millions upon millions of common people out of poverty and into self sufficiency: The free market economy.
You guys just can't seem to step out of your little ideological box for even the briefest moment to recognize that. Its a pitiable position to be in.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I was merely suggesting Mick that the cost of $4 prescriptions was being put onthe backs of WM employees by at the same time implemneting reduced hours, wages, and benefits and therefore it was not as a rosy as scenario as it might appear. As for myself, I own my own company, and my client base for the most part is Fortune 500 companies. I own thousands of shares of stock, and invest in mutual funds, etc. It's in my own self interest that large companies perform profitably. In 2004 I also ran up prescription and drug costs of over $100,000. So before you put the "ass" in assume as Slope likes to say, stick to the issues. The issue is that Wal-Mart is offsetting the cost of $4 scrips by taking it out of their employees hides and paychecks. It would seem to me that a family worth $77 billion dollars could treat their employees a little better. Another good conversation would be how WM treats their vendors of which I also have first hand knowledge.
October 4th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
It must have been the other Mencken who said he used a pseudonym because he didn't want to get fired.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
"I was merely suggesting Mick that the cost of $4 prescriptions was being put onthe backs of WM employees by at the same time implemneting reduced hours, wages, and benefits and therefore it was not as a rosy as scenario as it might appear."
How is this different from the welfare rolls and medicaid being put on the back of the taxpayers? Oh, I know. I'm compelled to pay for that by law but WalMart employees are not compelled to work there.
In any case, I'm not really thrilled with WalMart as a store overall but you certainly have to recognize that under a free market economy, the employers cannot be forced to pay 'living wages', especially for unskilled workers. Sure, it might be nice and altruistic if they did but its not a very good way to create a thriving business.
October 4th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
"I was merely suggesting Mick that the cost of $4 prescriptions was being put onthe backs of WM employees by at the same time implemneting reduced hours, wages, and benefits and therefore it was not as a rosy as scenario as it might appear."
Back to your quote again, in YOUR post you actually suggested no such thing. You merely stated that anyone who agrees with Slope is stupid.
Unless you are also posting as Spartacus who DID in fact suggest that very thing. Oops.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Spartacus and I are brothers in arms.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Larry, if you saw my client list you'd be rolling on the floor laughing.
You can get fired by a client.
Contracts get terminated.
It happens every day.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Mick, can I assume that when you're eligible, you'll be turning down your Medicaid benefits?
October 4th, 2006 at 6:12 pm
"Spartacus and I are brothers in arms."
Riiiight. And you two apparently have ESP too, mistaking his suggestion for your own. Imagine that!
"Mick, can I assume that when you're eligible, you'll be turning down your Medicaid benefits?"
Just about as likely as a WalMart employee turning down a $4 prescription, Popeye.
October 4th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Just to clear up the Mencken/Spartacus controversy: Spartacus is
temporary houseguest who's staying with me until he can bank a couple of paychecks and get back on his feet. He's been using my computer and logging in as Spartacus. If I respond to a blog comment and don't check the autofill, then the screen names might get switched. The Spartacus comment that triggered this was indeed Mencken. As a matter of fact this is not the first time it's happened. No matter, Spartacus and I agree on most things other than the Steelers and the Browns. So thanks Mick for putting the ass in assume again. And don't worry, Spartacus is just one more paycheck away from having his own ISP.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:03 am
"So thanks Mick for putting the ass in assume again."
This is why you're such a riot mencken. You cop a snotty, superior attitude while at the same time being so horribly wrong.
I didn't assume you were posting under another name, I deduced it. And quite correctly by your own admission. If you want to fancy yourself a 'wordsmith' you should probably learn what they mean before attempting to use them in a conversation.
October 5th, 2006 at 2:13 am
"you should probably learn what they mean before attempting to use them in a conversation."
This folks, is from a guy who calls people "tampons".
October 5th, 2006 at 6:30 am
Who said that?
And where does kj live?
And why won't Mencken pay those two a living wage?
I'm confused.
October 5th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Boys, boys…. geeze. Back to the Walmart issue. Why do Walmart employees consistently reject unionization? Are Walmart employees worse off than any other store clerks or fast food employees with high school educations? Why must Walmart be held to a higher standard just because it is profitable? What about MacDonald's and its corporate megaemployer?
October 5th, 2006 at 8:01 am
When you've finished looking up 'assume' and 'deduce', take a look at 'metaphor' as well, Wordsmith.
October 5th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
"Why do Walmart employees consistently reject unionization?"
The LA Times fired their publisher today for refusing to make staff cuts. I'm ASSUMING that was a skill position at the paper. If a company like the LA Times will fire a publisher for protecting his staff, what do think would happen to those that would try to organize a union at Wal-Mart ?
October 5th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
This is your argument? Because a newspaper in LA fired someone for not making staff cuts then WalMart MUST fire people for attempting to unionize?
Thats quite a leap to (yes, you're doing it now) ASSume that a company in a completely unrelated industry in a completely different financial situation would make an identical firing decision based on a completely different set of circumstances.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:41 am
You're right….. they are two different businesses, the LA Times doesn't lock it's employees inside their building at night.
October 6th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
When losing an argument, change the argument. That always works.
We started with $4 prescriptions on the backs of the poor employees, to firing people for unionizing, now those horrible meanies are locking people in at night. What next, short lunch breaks?
October 20th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Bad bad Walmart giving 1.5 million people a job, they should go to bed without supper.
And all the X employes should live on our tax dollars and we should all pay extra taxes to help them out and buy all are stuff from the French at Target, that is when all there employes get in a great union and have health insurance and make $20.00 a hour and I pay $10.00 a pound for apples. Wow, you realy have great ideas and lots of money to spend.
October 22nd, 2006 at 4:13 am
Eli Lilly 3Q 10% profit rise is nearly all from psyche drugs including zyprexa.
How have they schemed to squeeze more money from their zyprexa cash cow when pill production has actually gone down?
ANS-Eli Lilly profiteers have jacked up the price of zyprexa to the federal govt,from the Medicare D payouts.
Eli Lilly is a big drug company that puts profits over patients.
They covered up findings that their Zyprexa has a TEN times greater risk of causing type 2 diabetes
Only 9% of Americans trust big pharma,right around the same rating as tobacco companies.
Daniel Haszard Eli Lilly zyprexa drug caused my diabetes http://www.zyprexa-victims.com
October 25th, 2006 at 8:26 am
I do not know the the other names for the medicines that I am currently taking…. Is there a list that uses the regular names, such as Toprol, Crestor, Premarin, Tricor and Hyzaar???……
October 25th, 2006 at 8:28 am
What is the other names for Tricor, Premarin, Crestor, Toprol and Hyzaar? I do not find these on your list under the above names. Thanks