Religious freedom laws and miscarriages

[kalm]

I got nuttin'.

Examples please.

It's not as if you're going to find a study that says "x pharmacy closes because, Walmart". But the influence of big box retailers on independently owned businesses is not in dispute. Other influences on indy pharmacies include Wall Street financing (shocker) and Medicare Part D payments. Thanks, Bush.

Giants such as Deerfield-based Walgreen and Woonsocket, R.I.-based CVS took a big bite out the independents starting in the 1980s, thriving as a result of their low-cost prescriptions and multiple locations, said Kevin Schweers, senior vice president of the National Community Pharmacist Association. Many independents that weren't bought up closed their doors.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 ... drugstores" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hoey says independent pharmacies have held their own over the past decade, after many were driven out of business when big-box and chain retail pharmacies proliferated in the 1980s. About half of independent pharmacies are located in cities with populations of 20,000 or fewer. Today, “the single biggest challenge to our financial success is the pharmacy benefit managers, multibillion-dollar Wall Street companies that have wedged themselves in as middlemen between employers and pharmacies,” Hoey says. Although most Americans might be hard-pressed to identify which PBM processes their prescriptions, he says, they exert enormous influence over the pharmaceutical industry.

PBMs “dictate reimbursement terms and cash flow” to small pharmacies on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, he says: “The PBM is a competitor that can poach and cherry-pick the most profitable prescriptions, and they have made the [pharmaceutical insurance] payment system so convoluted it’s hard to pinpoint how they make their money.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... pharmacies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

Did this paticular woman have no other options than Wal-Mart? Somehow I doubt it.

Maybe, but that's not always going to be the case.

[Baldy]

Examples please.

It's not as if you're going to find a study that says "x pharmacy closes because, Walmart". But the influence of big box retailers on independently owned businesses is not in dispute. Other influences on indy pharmacies include Wall Street financing (shocker) and Medicare Part D payments. Thanks, Bush.

Giants such as Deerfield-based Walgreen and Woonsocket, R.I.-based CVS took a big bite out the independents starting in the 1980s, thriving as a result of their low-cost prescriptions and multiple locations, said Kevin Schweers, senior vice president of the National Community Pharmacist Association. Many independents that weren't bought up closed their doors.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 ... drugstores" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hoey says independent pharmacies have held their own over the past decade, after many were driven out of business when big-box and chain retail pharmacies proliferated in the 1980s. About half of independent pharmacies are located in cities with populations of 20,000 or fewer. Today, “the single biggest challenge to our financial success is the pharmacy benefit managers, multibillion-dollar Wall Street companies that have wedged themselves in as middlemen between employers and pharmacies,” Hoey says. Although most Americans might be hard-pressed to identify which PBM processes their prescriptions, he says, they exert enormous influence over the pharmaceutical industry.

PBMs “dictate reimbursement terms and cash flow” to small pharmacies on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, he says: “The PBM is a competitor that can poach and cherry-pick the most profitable prescriptions, and they have made the [pharmaceutical insurance] payment system so convoluted it’s hard to pinpoint how they make their money.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... pharmacies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm...

It's so unlike you to disparage a big government program. Much less a successful one (so very rare) like Medicare Part D.

Why Medicare Part D Worked When Many Said It Wouldn't

With the rollout of Obamacare and HealthCare.gov under fire, it has focused attention on a previous rollout that had early problems and doubts and is now recognized as a great success: the Medicare prescription drug benefit (or Part D). They are similar in that both represent large, new government programs that depend on the participation of Americans in need of high-quality care. But as we approach Part D's 10th anniversary in December, it's important to assess why the program has proven to be highly effective when many predicted failure shortly before Congress enacted it in 2003.

Part D's success can be measured in a number of ways, most importantly how seniors perceive it. From 2006 to 2013, satisfaction rates among beneficiaries increased from 78 percent to 90 percent, according to a recent Medicare Today survey. With Part D offering at least 28 plans in every region of the country, it makes sense that 95 percent of seniors called the program convenient. It's also easy for seniors to love because it saves them approximately $300 in projected out-of-pocket costs, an amount that can be closer to $2,000 for those with high drug requirements.

Fiscally speaking, Part D has exceeded expectations. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that total program costs are on track to be $348 billion - or 45 percent - less than initial 10-year projections. Average monthly premiums are expected to be $31 in 2014, which is less than half of the $64 originally predicted. This type of cost saving is something we can all support, especially at a time when we're in the throws of a highly contested U.S. debt limit discussion.

Part D also has an important preventive component. Evidence from the CBO suggests that adherence to prescription drugs leads to offsetting reductions in Medicare spending for other medical services provided in hospitals or nursing homes. Part D's ability to help seniors get the medicines they need will continue to help keep overall health care costs down.

Thank you, President Bush.



Huffington and Puffington

[YoUDeeMan]

Giants such as Deerfield-based Walgreen and Woonsocket, R.I.-based CVS took a big bite out the independents starting in the 1980s, thriving as a result of their low-cost prescriptions and multiple locations, said Kevin Schweers, senior vice president of the National Community Pharmacist Association. Many independents that weren't bought up closed their doors.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 ... drugstores" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hoey says independent pharmacies have held their own over the past decade, after many were driven out of business when big-box and chain retail pharmacies proliferated in the 1980s. About half of independent pharmacies are located in cities with populations of 20,000 or fewer.

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... pharmacies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wait...lower priced medications are a bad thing?

After an initial period where inefficient, expensive (greedy) independent pharmacies closed, independent pharmacies have held their own in the past decade. Sounds as though the free market is working.



Actually, the only real problem remains where the independent pharmacist has a monopoly in small towns...he can charge as much money as he wants. And, we all know how expensive it is to live in a small town...so those pharmacists, with their monopoly, need to charge their customers high prices.



kalmmy has a dilemma...big, bad low-priced WalMart versus small, monopolistic, high dollar independents in small towns.

Head exploding in 3, 2, 1....

[kalm]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 ... drugstores" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... pharmacies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wait...lower priced medications are a bad thing?

After an initial period where inefficient, expensive (greedy) independent pharmacies closed, independent pharmacies have held their own in the past decade. Sounds as though the free market is working.



Actually, the only real problem remains where the independent pharmacist has a monopoly in small towns...he can charge as much money as he wants. And, we all know how expensive it is to live in a small town...so those pharmacists, with their monopoly, need to charge their customers high prices.



kalmmy has a dilemma...big, bad low-priced WalMart versus small, monopolistic, high dollar independents in small towns.

Head exploding in 3, 2, 1....

No dilemma.

Small town monopolies > the multinational corporatist monopolies.

Medicare Part D - great for seniors and drug companies, bad for main street business and the deficit. Lower medicine prices are subsidized and non-negotiable.

Indy pharmacy drug prices are the same, and they tend to pay their employees better…because they have to live there too.

Baldy and Cluck…sycophantic oligarchy bitches!

[El Griz]

Currently nothing illegal with declining the transaction. However the lady declined would be doing her neighborhood a favor by making it very public that this specific pharmacist does not act in the best interest of the customers health and one should seek a different pharmacy to use.

[89Hen]

Pro-choice folks would have you believe that a majority of abortions are because of incest or rape, so...

Yeah, I've seen people argue that all the time...

Back to back fails by CID and Hen

Yeah, my bad. Only you guys and Cleets are allowed to use hyperbole.

[D1B]

Because nowhere in America is Walmart the only game in town.

Exactly.

The little po dunk town I grew up in doesn't even have a chain grocery store, much less a Walmart, but it has a CVS a Rite Aid and at least 3 independent pharmacies.

Calling bullshit on this Boldlie. Little towns dont have at least 5 pharmacies.

Fucking liar.

[D1B]

Currently nothing illegal with declining the transaction. However the lady declined would be doing her neighborhood a favor by making it very public that this specific pharmacist does not act in the best interest of the customers health and one should seek a different pharmacy to use.

Liberals have lives. Only conks are mean and angry enough to do this.

[houndawg]

Currently nothing illegal with declining the transaction. However the lady declined would be doing her neighborhood a favor by making it very public that this specific pharmacist does not act in the best interest of the customers health and one should seek a different pharmacy to use.

Liberals have lives. Only conks are mean and angry enough to do this.

Its the disconnect caused by their cashing Social Security checks and Medicare coverage while they snivel about the guvmint... ....conks....

[89Hen]

Liberals have lives. Only conks are mean and angry enough to do this.

Oh, the irony of that post.

[JohnStOnge]

You really do struggle with the whole social contract thing.

I don't believe in the "social contract" thing at all. When you really enter into a contract, you make a voluntary an conscious decision to do so. To say that you have agreed to something by virtue of being born into a certain political jurisdiction is ludicrous. You haven't entered into a "social contract" just because you were born in the United States.

And, no, the idea "if you don't like it leave it" doesn't fly. You being born in the United States doesn't mean you have entered into a "social contract."

I think the whole "social contract" concept is just an excuse to justify forcing people to do what they don't want to do.

[kalm]

You really do struggle with the whole social contract thing.

I don't believe in the "social contract" thing at all. When you really enter into a contract, you make a voluntary an conscious decision to do so. To say that you have agreed to something by virtue of being born into a certain political jurisdiction is ludicrous. You haven't entered into a "social contract" just because you were born in the United States.

And, no, the idea "if you don't like it leave it" doesn't fly. You being born in the United States doesn't mean you have entered into a "social contract."

I think the whole "social contract" concept is just an excuse to justify forcing people to do what they don't want to do.

Now I know for sure that you don't understand it.

Here, read up on some Locke.

The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it.

Second Treatise, §95
The consent of the governed is one of the major themes of Locke's Second Treatise. No one can force men to form a government; they have to agree to create a social contract. The perfect freedom that they enjoyed in the state of nature must be set aside and the power to legislate and punish must be placed in an authority. The loss of the state of natural liberty is countered by the gain of many conveniences of a government. The social contract forms the basis of the government's legitimacy, and the legislative and executive authorities should take care not to deviate from the powers invested in them by the people. If they do not heed the people's power then they risk the dissolution of the government.

Sorry you were born into this oppression. But yes, you always have the right to dissolve the government or leave, returning to nature. In fact, it's probably the responsible thing to do.