The government(s) oughta put the brakes on brand-name drug advertising. One evening while I was washing the dishes during the national news I heard a three-minute - that's right- three minute ad about (I think it was but I don't care what it was) Celebrex. That's atrocious.

They are, in essence, required to by law.

They cannot just make their claims and then say, "talk to your doctor," in a normal 15 or 30 second spot. The gov't requires that they drone on about possible side effects which people generally ignore, just as they generally ignore the full page fact sheet following print ads.

Why do they NEED to advertise at all? If it's the right medication, the doctor should know about it and prescribe it.

The whole concept about getting the clueless public jazzed about the latest hot new drug so they will rush to their doctor and demand it is just mind-numbingly idiotic and should be outlawed.

They "need" to advertise for the same reason every other company trying to sell a product "needs" to advertise...competition.

There is no justifiable reason to promote prescription drugs to the general public. They should be advertised to the medical community who supposedly have the knowledge and training to know what needs to be prescribed, instead of having their patients come to them demanding to be prescribed something they heard about on TV.

---

[quote]Welp, once again that eeeevil retailer Wal-Mart demonstrates how falling prices help those that can afford it the least. Similarly, it demonstrates how medicines, as bulk consumer items, could be cheaper than many other cheap everyday items that the poor buy regularly.

Driving costs down, whether it be in electronics, foodstuffs, energy, or, in this case medicine, HELPS those that can afford it the least. Taxing them to death, so that it becomes hard to afford ANYTHING, destroys them. Get it folks?

From CNN:

Wal-Mart expands low-priced drug program

The world's biggest retailer offers 90-day prescriptions for $10 and more than 1,000 OTC drugs for $4 or less.
Last Updated: May 5, 2008: 1:53 PM EDT

It's one thing to pull on a shirt made for penneys in an overseas sweat shop but when it comes to ingesting food and meds, there needs to be way more quality control and consistent drug assays performed on imports. Just this morning comes the lead in dental crowns report on cheap Chinese crowns. Last year it was the mass poisoning of pets because of cheap Chinese melamine imports. Lead painted toys? What are they thinking? Has anyone tested the farm raised Chinese fish for poisons? It's about all that you see in Wal Mart's freezers. I'm all for increasing a buyer's choices but there must be a retailer's moral requirement to only sell safe stuff.

---

Why do they NEED to advertise at all? If it's the right medication, the doctor should know about it and prescribe it.

It's not a matter of need. They have the right to do it if they so wish, regardless of what you happen to think about it. Although it is commercial speech, it is generally protected speech as well.

The whole concept about getting the clueless public jazzed about the latest hot new drug so they will rush to their doctor and demand it is just mind-numbingly idiotic and should be outlawed.

You and Thorin ought to get together. He has LOTS of stuff he wants to force upon other people. I mean, he'll happily force them onto you as well, but that's OK, you like outlawing things.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

There is no justifiable reason to promote prescription drugs to the general public.

The term "profit" makes that easily debatable and I'm quite sure each company knows exactly how many of "product A" they have to sell in order to justify the cost of manufacturing and advertising.

They should be advertised to the medical community who supposedly have the knowledge and training to know what needs to be prescribed, instead of having their patients come to them demanding to be prescribed something they heard about on TV.

But you've offered no proof as to how this adversely affects anyone or how your proposed advertisement restrictions would benefit anyone.

---

[quote]Welp, once again that eeeevil retailer Wal-Mart demonstrates how falling prices help those that can afford it the least. Similarly, it demonstrates how medicines, as bulk consumer items, could be cheaper than many other cheap everyday items that the poor buy regularly.

Driving costs down, whether it be in electronics, foodstuffs, energy, or, in this case medicine, HELPS those that can afford it the least. Taxing them to death, so that it becomes hard to afford ANYTHING, destroys them. Get it folks?

From CNN:

Wal-Mart expands low-priced drug program

The world's biggest retailer offers 90-day prescriptions for $10 and more than 1,000 OTC drugs for $4 or less.
Last Updated: May 5, 2008: 1:53 PM EDT

It's one thing to pull on a shirt made for penneys in an overseas sweat shop but when it comes to ingesting food and meds, there needs to be way more quality control and consistent drug assays performed on imports. Just this morning comes the lead in dental crowns report on cheap Chinese crowns. Last year it was the mass poisoning of pets because of cheap Chinese melamine imports. Lead painted toys? What are they thinking? Has anyone tested the farm raised Chinese fish for poisons? It's about all that you see in Wal Mart's freezers. I'm all for increasing a buyer's choices but there must be a retailer's moral requirement to only sell safe stuff.

My brother works for Wal Mart and he said that when the company announced the prescription drug program....the company itself would be eating the losses between what the company pays, and what the customer pays.

Evil Wal Mart isn't as evil as people make it out to be in a lot of cases.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

There is no justifiable reason to promote prescription drugs to the general public.

The term "profit" makes that easily debatable and I'm quite sure each company knows exactly how many of "product A" they have to sell in order to justify the cost of manufacturing and advertising.

They should be advertised to the medical community who supposedly have the knowledge and training to know what needs to be prescribed, instead of having their patients come to them demanding to be prescribed something they heard about on TV.

But you've offered no proof as to how this adversely affects anyone or how your proposed advertisement restrictions would benefit anyone.

It directly affects the cost and delivery of medical office services.

Doctors have to spend their precious face time with patients explaining why they don't need the drug-of-the day, or why it's contra-indicated with their existing health conditions or medications.

---

Evil Wal Mart isn't as evil as people make it out to be in a lot of cases.

As someone who has formerly worked for Walmart in the distant past and was fired for having long hair even though they hired me with it and kept me past 90 days and despite the fact that they had no discriminatory dress code, and seeing some of the things I saw while working there, I'll prefer to keep believing that Walmart is evil. The company has not received so much as a penny from me in the past two decades because of this.

It directly affects the cost and delivery of medical office services.

Doctors have to spend their precious face time with patients explaining why they don't need the drug-of-the day, or why it's contra-indicated with their existing health conditions or medications.

Well I see at least 2 problems with your "justification" right off the bat.

1. I seriously doubt many folks are requesting Viagra for their arthritis resulting in wasted hours explaining why a patient doesn't need "the drug of the day".

2. As the patient paying for said medical services, I don't consider explaining the benefits and side-affects of the various forms of treatment to be a waste of the doctors "precious face time". In fact, one could easily surmise that diagnosis and treatment options are EXACTLY what I went to the doctor for in the first place.

---

It directly affects the cost and delivery of medical office services.

Doctors have to spend their precious face time with patients explaining why they don't need the drug-of-the day, or why it's contra-indicated with their existing health conditions or medications.

Well I see at least 2 problems with your "justification" right off the bat.

1. I seriously doubt many folks are requesting Viagra for their arthritis resulting in wasted hours explaining why a patient doesn't need "the drug of the day".

2. As the patient paying for said medical services, I don't consider explaining the benefits and side-affects of the various forms of treatment to be a waste of the doctors "precious face time". In fact, one could easily surmise that diagnosis and treatment options are EXACTLY what I went to the doctor for in the first place.

Not to mention the fact that doctors in the US have a moral and legal obligation to explain the different treatment options available. As a matter of fact, the "Patient Bill of Rights" adopted in the US in 1998 states in part: Consumers have the right and responsibility to fully participate in all decisions related to their health care. Consumers who are unable to fully participate in treatment decisions have the right to be represented by parents, guardians, family members, or other conservators. So if my doctor says he is going to give me Percocet, I have the right to say I would prefer to have Vicodin. He then has a responsibility to explain why he thinks I would be better off with Percocet, any contraindications etc.

Evil Wal Mart isn't as evil as people make it out to be in a lot of cases.

As someone who has formerly worked for Walmart in the distant past and was fired for having long hair even though they hired me with it and kept me past 90 days and despite the fact that they had no discriminatory dress code, and seeing some of the things I saw while working there, I'll prefer to keep believing that Walmart is evil. The company has not received so much as a penny from me in the past two decades because of this.

That's your choice Ozz.

They have all kinds working there now, and they have had to clean up their act as far as working people extra hours without paying them.

It's better than it used to be.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Evil Wal Mart isn't as evil as people make it out to be in a lot of cases.

As someone who has formerly worked for Walmart in the distant past and was fired for having long hair even though they hired me with it and kept me past 90 days and despite the fact that they had no discriminatory dress code, and seeing some of the things I saw while working there, I'll prefer to keep believing that Walmart is evil. The company has not received so much as a penny from me in the past two decades because of this.

Of course, and that's your free choice. I would bet that their story on the situation would differ somewhat from yours, but so what?

Similarly, I'm sure that one can find people with alike views about every single large corporation that has ever existed.

That, however, does not change the point that driving prices and costs DOWN is what helps people who need it the most, not coming up with nutso policies that drive costs up, and proclaiming how you've helped those who can hardly afford anything. "We've consistently and regularly driven the cost of living through the roof here in London," isn't actually helping anyone--it crushes those that can afford it the least, the most.

People can buy the medicines they need for less than the cost of almost ANYTHING else they buy; that is a much better benefit to the individuals who need it, than Wal-Mart's particular employment or remuneration policies. The length of your hair notwithstanding, of course.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

It is in their best interests to keep customers healthy enough to go to the stores and spend cash on other items.

Wal-Mart is often vilified for buying goods at as low a cost as possible and passing the savings along to its customers. Great company for those who are not feeding high on the hog. No wonder they are in great financial shape and expanding all over the world. More power to them.

---

Klatu barrata nicktoe.

Evil Wal Mart isn't as evil as people make it out to be in a lot of cases.

As someone who has formerly worked for Walmart in the distant past and was fired for having long hair even though they hired me with it and kept me past 90 days and despite the fact that they had no discriminatory dress code, and seeing some of the things I saw while working there, I'll prefer to keep believing that Walmart is evil. The company has not received so much as a penny from me in the past two decades because of this.

Of course, and that's your free choice. I would bet that their story on the situation would differ somewhat from yours, but so what?

I certainly hope you're not implying that I only "feel" I was fired for my long hair but they had a technical or different reason for it.

If so, you are quite wrong. A paper flyer was passed around to all employees stating that all men had to have their hair cut shoulder length or shorter or would be immediately terminated of their employment. There were five of us who lost our jobs. I wish I had the care back then to seek a lawyer about it, but I was more concerned about finding a new job and moving on, being young and all. My manager at the time even told me that I should seek a lawyer, as well as our local HR person.

No, their story, unless they try to rewrite history like so many politicians, should be the same as mine.


I don't care what Wal-Mart does for falling prices, I only care about how they treat people, especially those that work for them. First and foremost we are all humans stuck on a ball of mud. Everything else is secondary.

Evil Wal Mart isn't as evil as people make it out to be in a lot of cases.

As someone who has formerly worked for Walmart in the distant past and was fired for having long hair even though they hired me with it and kept me past 90 days and despite the fact that they had no discriminatory dress code, and seeing some of the things I saw while working there, I'll prefer to keep believing that Walmart is evil. The company has not received so much as a penny from me in the past two decades because of this.

That's your choice Ozz.

They have all kinds working there now, and they have had to clean up their act as far as working people extra hours without paying them.

It's better than it used to be.

I don't know about that. A lady that used to work with me at my current job has a son that worked at Wal-Mart recently. Short story: there was an personal injury incident involving a forklift and her son. He was left in a walking concussion to finish off the day, even after telling them he didn't feel well. Then, when things got worse, he went to see a doctor (their "approved" doctor) who said everything was fine. His mother was concerned for him and told him to get a second opinion, of which he did. The non-Wal-Mart paid doctor told him that his body was in shock and he suffered some crushing bruises. He was fired for going to a non-approved doctor, but at least he was smart enough to file a lawsuit.


More than just being "evil" for putting Mom & Pop shops out of business (which isn't good for competition if you can't buy things direct from vendors as low as some corporate conglomerate can), its also about the "evil" that happens within the company itself. For reference, see also Best Buy.

More than just being "evil" for putting Mom & Pop shops out of business

Something we all predicted would happen not so long ago... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I don't know about that. A lady that used to work with me at my current job has a son that worked at Wal-Mart recently. Short story: there was an personal injury incident involving a forklift and her son. He was left in a walking concussion to finish off the day, even after telling them he didn't feel well. Then, when things got worse, he went to see a doctor (their "approved" doctor) who said everything was fine. His mother was concerned for him and told him to get a second opinion, of which he did. The non-Wal-Mart paid doctor told him that his body was in shock and he suffered some crushing bruises. He was fired for going to a non-approved doctor, but at least he was smart enough to file a lawsuit.

That's called an anecdote. That company employs what 1.5 million people? There is going to every type of story under the sun. Good stories, bad stories, and everything in between. Mostly because Wal-Mart the corporation, just like almost any employer where the owners do not have direct operational control over the day-to-day activities of their employees, cannot control the hundreds of millions of daily interactions between employees and their supervisors.

How many gym teachers tell students with broken spines to "walk it off, walk it off," every day? The school district can't be there for every decision they make either.

More than just being "evil" for putting Mom & Pop shops out of business (which isn't good for competition if you can't buy things direct from vendors as low as some corporate conglomerate can), its also about the "evil" that happens within the company itself. For reference, see also Best Buy.

Wal-Mart doesn't put anyone out of business. Ever. Customers in a given area decide for themselves that for their discretionary spending dollar, Wal-Mart provides a better value than "Mom and Pop." They are free to decide that for themselves. If enough of those customers do decide that, M&P are faced with a dilemma--provide extra value or operate at a loss. But again, driving the costs down for an entire community helps those that can afford it least. If M&P are too expensive for the value they offer, they're too expensive. C'est la vie.

Again, you are welcome to spend more if you wish. Go nuts. That's wasteful, but it's your money.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Evil Wal Mart isn't as evil as people make it out to be in a lot of cases.

As someone who has formerly worked for Walmart in the distant past and was fired for having long hair even though they hired me with it and kept me past 90 days and despite the fact that they had no discriminatory dress code, and seeing some of the things I saw while working there, I'll prefer to keep believing that Walmart is evil. The company has not received so much as a penny from me in the past two decades because of this.

That's your choice Ozz.

They have all kinds working there now, and they have had to clean up their act as far as working people extra hours without paying them.

It's better than it used to be.

I don't know about that. A lady that used to work with me at my current job has a son that worked at Wal-Mart recently. Short story: there was an personal injury incident involving a forklift and her son. He was left in a walking concussion to finish off the day, even after telling them he didn't feel well. Then, when things got worse, he went to see a doctor (their "approved" doctor) who said everything was fine. His mother was concerned for him and told him to get a second opinion, of which he did. The non-Wal-Mart paid doctor told him that his body was in shock and he suffered some crushing bruises. He was fired for going to a non-approved doctor, but at least he was smart enough to file a lawsuit.

I don't know of one single company who's Workman's Comp doctors wouldn't do exactly the same thing. It goes on all the time at my place of work.

Example : I was trying to climb into a pallet dispenser to replace the air cylinders that run the " finger " supports. I wound up twisting my knee pretty badly, and went to the company approved doctor. Guess what, he told me that it was nothing major. No real damage, no brace needed, and that I should continue working and do my job as usual. Unfortunately, went I went back to work, I was in quite a lot of pain and had a very hard time getting on and off my forklift.

The next day, I went back to the same clinic, saw a different doctor ( still a company approved one ) and found out that I had a badly sprained LCL. THAT doctor put me on restrictions and also told me that, even though she couldn't go against the original doctor's orders and give me a brace for it, that I should go get one ( cost me about 12 bucks ). I did....stayed off the leg for about 3 days, and I was fine.

Comp doctors get paid to keep people working. That may or may not be the fault of the company. Most of the time, it just depends on what doctor you wind up getting to see.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Comp doctors get paid to keep people working.

In the military, they just give you Motrin and order you to get back to work... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I don't know of one single company who's Workman's Comp doctors wouldn't do exactly the same thing. It goes on all the time at my place of work.

Comp doctors get paid to keep people working. That may or may not be the fault of the company. Most of the time, it just depends on what doctor you wind up getting to see.

Don't you see a moralistic problem with that? Shouldn't the responsibility of the doctor be to the patient who needs help and not to the company who's paying them off just to "keep people working"? It really shouldn't matter what doctor you get, they should all be professional and have their patient's best interests in mind when helping them.

Justifying it by saying it happens everywhere doesn't exactly mean its the right thing to do, or the most responsible thing to do. This is why laws are made to protect people, because without them we'd be at the mercy of our employers and their pocketbooks. This is why doing something about it is the responsibility of everyone. I'm kinda shocked by the passe or laissez faire attitude toward this.

I don't know of one single company who's Workman's Comp doctors wouldn't do exactly the same thing. It goes on all the time at my place of work.

Comp doctors get paid to keep people working. That may or may not be the fault of the company. Most of the time, it just depends on what doctor you wind up getting to see.

Don't you see a moralistic problem with that? Shouldn't the responsibility of the doctor be to the patient who needs help and not to the company who's paying them off just to "keep people working"? It really shouldn't matter what doctor you get, they should all be professional and have their patient's best interests in mind when helping them.

This is just more of what I noted above (that may need to be reposted). Doctors disagree about diagnoses all the time. Choosing the diagnosis that happens to suit your point as the correct one does not mean that the other doctor is some company shill--it means that the doctors disagree. It doesn't mean that the one whose diagnosis you dislike doesn't have the patient's best interests in mind.

In KM's example, the difference between the two opinions was minor--one thought it needed a brace, one did not. One thought it was a "badly sprained LCL" and yet, it healed in three days. The other thought it was no real damage--and that could have been true as well--it healed in three days. Relatively minor bruising takes longer than that to heal.

In other words, without significant and self-evident damage, these are often just opinion calls. Cherry-picking among them to bolster a case that Wal-Mart (insert eeeevil company-du-jour) somehow subverts the professional opinion of doctors isn't really an argument.

Justifying it by saying it happens everywhere doesn't exactly mean its the right thing to do, or the most responsible thing to do. This is why laws are made to protect people, because without them we'd be at the mercy of our employers and their pocketbooks.

For the most part, you ARE at their mercy regardless, because as I said previously, U.S. states are all for the most part at-will employment states, which generally means that without specific employment contracts employers can fire employees for any reason, no reason, and unfair reason, so long as the reason is not an illegal reason.

And yet, Wal-Mart pays an average wage that is higher than the minimum, and did so even before it was raised. And yet, not everyone in the U.S. is paid $0.03 an hour. Why is that? Because employers do not control the labor market. They simply cannot simply to decide to pay $0.03 because labor, just like any other resource, is scarce.

This is why doing something about it is the responsibility of everyone. I'm kinda shocked by the passe or laissez faire attitude toward this.

Not shopping at Wal-Mart isn't really "doing something about it," at all and there's no reason to be shocked that other people disagree with you. In fact, millions of them do every day--that's why Wal-Mart does so well. They provide real value for their prices and people choose to shop there.

While it is, of course, your right to refuse to shop there, the individuals that do shop there realize that, for the most part, they can get very similar products for significantly lower costs. That savings (actual money, reduced prices and costs) outweighs the value to them (negligible) of the minutia of your opinion of Wal-Mart as a freely chosen employer.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...