| Author |
Message |
    
Pippi
Supporter
Username: Pippi
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 12:11 pm: | 
|
Wal-Mart currently only carries the pill at its Illinois stores, where it is required under state regulations.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/02/15walmart.contraception/index.html |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5192
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Is it right to compel a store to carry and sell a product? |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Supporter
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 3022
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Betcha it carries Viagra!!!! |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5193
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Don't know if your post was in response to mine, but it still doesn't answer my question.
I'm not saying a state can't make a law to the effect of compelling a company to sell a product. I'm asking if it's right. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5723
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Touchy ground here cjc. This is not about deciding to sell or not sell a CD because of content, or to stop selling a book because the corporate heads don't agree with its philosophy.
Fundamentally I don't think you can COMPEL a store to carry a specific item, except perhaps a cheese shop should be compelled to carry cheese.
But the issue seems much broader than that. Walmart regularly censors what it sells. It has that right, but almost of those things are not health related.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10690
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 1:35 pm: |
|
I don't think that Walmart, or any other store, should be compelled to carry X rated movies or some forms of music.
HOwever, they are running a state regulated and licensed pharmacy operations and I think it is within the scope of reason for the state to make sure legal drugs are available to all citizens of the state who have a valid prescription. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 986
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 1:49 pm: |
|
Are medical doctors required to perform abortions in Massachusetts, if requested by a patient?
TomR |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1923
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:28 pm: |
|
bobk's got it right. if you are a licensed pharmacy, the state can compel you to provide all FDA approved medications, or lose your license. |
Pippi
Supporter
Username: Pippi
Post Number: 1749
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Wal Mart refuses to carry it based on moral grounds.
As others have said, it is an FDA (read: Government) approved drug. Yes they should be compelled to sell it, or lose their license to sell all drugs. They can't pick and choose based on certain criteria. |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 1288
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Completely agree they should be compelled by the state, for reasons others have already cited. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 990
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Pippi,
Did you read the information on the link you provided; or did you just decide to ignore the information?
TomR |
Pippi
Supporter
Username: Pippi
Post Number: 1750
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Tom - Yes, I read it. I was answering cjc's question of whether or not a business should be compelled to sell something.
Perhaps you are referring to my statement that Wal Mart refuses on moral grounds?
I personally don't believe it's a business decision. Next time I will be clearer that this is my opinion. It's probably much closer to the truth than what their spinmeisters would have you believe |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 991
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Pippi,
Yes, I was referring to your statement that the decision was based upon moral grounds rather than the stated business reasons.
Although, it would be interesting to review the data on which pharmacies, in which States, stock low volume prescription meds?
TomR |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10694
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 3:39 pm: |
|
The link has disappeared. However, I think the only "moral value" Walmart is worried about is their bottom line if the social conservatives decide on a boycott. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 995
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 4:04 pm: |
|
The link is here:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/02/15/walmart.contraception/index.html
TomR |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3044
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 5:10 pm: |
|
I am with cjc on this one.
The argument is that since WalMart is so ubiquitous and controls so much of the retail pharma market, it will drive down costs and increase access to the pills. However, I find that a bit specious--if WalMart does not provide it, there will be other outlets that do, and WalMart will stand to lose business. And I do not believe WalMart has the same pull to drop prices with pharma products as it does with other more fungible products.
If it is WalMart's choice to lose business to Costco or RiteAid, so be it. Others will gladly take up the demand. The state and FDA should not be in the business of forcing WalMart to sell a product, anymore than they should force OB-GYNs to perform abortions if they choose not to do so.
And, by the way, before you flame me, I am saying absolutely nothing about a woman's right to use the pill or have access to legal abortion services--I am only speaking to WalMart's being required to provide the pill. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4362
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Wal-mart is the world's largest seller of cigarettes. |
Pippi
Supporter
Username: Pippi
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 5:16 pm: |
|
ESL - re: "if WalMart does not provide it, there will be other outlets that do, and WalMart will stand to lose business. "
In some parts of this country, Wal Mart is the only game in town. Sad but true. If they refuse to sell, there will be people without access to medication the FDA says is legal in this country |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4363
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
ESL, I see a difference between forcing a medical practitioner to learn a specific procedure and perform it on demand; and simply requiring a licensed and regulated business to stock a category of products. |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 375
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 5:31 pm: |
|
ESL: Emergency contraception is an emergency. One can't shop around for days, and as was stated earlier, there are many areas of the country where pharmacies are much fewer than around here.
There are insurance plans that limit where you can get your medications.
Believe it or not, there are also people who must walk or take the bus to get to a pharmacy.
My point: It's not always so easy for others to shop around as it would be for you or me. Requiring someone to shop around for an approved drug needed urgently seems to me to discriminate against those who are most vulnerable/least capable. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3046
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Yes, I had not thought about the emergency nature of the situation. Thanks for pointing that out.
I want to think more about this because the concept of forcing a retailer to carry something they either morally oppose or oppose for business reasons seems to bother me.
I am not trying to push it too far, but what if, in order to fight terrorist cells in the US, the government determined that we really do need an emergency citizen militia right away and required retailers to sell guns to people, even if the retailer disagreed with this? Where do we draw the line on this type of required retailing? |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1755
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 8:19 pm: |
|
No one is requiring a retailer to do anything. The state is requiring a pharmacy -- an ultra-regulated, specialized business -- to engage in practices deemed to be in the best interest of the public health.
Wal-Mart The Retailer can sell or not sell rubber chickens, diet soda, gum drops and anything else as it so chooses. But Wal-Mart The Pharmacy, which is probably one of the biggest recipients of Medicare dollars on the planet, can't engage in conduct the government says is tantamount to health-care discrimination.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1924
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 9:15 pm: |
|
that's right.
the pharmacy business is so tightly regulated, in most states, they have laws such as those that say you can't buy more than one or two boxes of Sudafed at a time (because some people use it to make meth). If you're arguing against pharmacies being regulated businesses, that's a completely different issue. but given that pharmacies are licensed and regulated by the state, the state can require them to carry any medications. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1881
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 10:08 pm: |
|
It would be convenient if the average corner store could carry Plan B in the same way they carry Hall's cough drops.
However, the operators of pharmacies have been granted a monopoly on the distribution of certain products and in exchange they are expected to make these products available. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 996
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Will WalMart be required to have a pharmacist present during business hours who is willing to dispense the med?
TomR |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 1926
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 11:08 pm: |
|
you found the loophole! |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4365
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 11:45 pm: |
|
doesn't every pharmacy? |
CFA
Citizen
Username: Cfa
Post Number: 1570
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 4:54 am: |
|
I can tell you that Wal-Mart is not the largest seller of cigarettes here in Florida. They are on average 75 cents more per pack than even convenience stores. |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 1292
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 9:09 am: |
|
cmonty - I disagree....I think Walmart should be forced to sell rubber chickens too...  |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page