Posted on 12/03/2005 2:17:17 PM PST by wagglebee
STUPID RPH'S. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO HANDLE THIS THING AND I BLOODY WELL KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THAT INCLUDES RPH'S, ANY STATE AND WALGREENS. THE WHOLE THING IS JUST DUMB.
I go to Walmarts for meds too.
If you boycott Illinois, that won't change the law. If you apply pressure on the community of large corporate sponsors who finance political campaigns, then you can get the attention of amoral cash-hounds like Gov Rod. Then laws can be changed to accommodate the highest bidder.
"Walgreen, based in Deerfield, Ill., put the four on leave Monday, Bruce said. She would not identify them. They will remain on unpaid leave "until they either decide to abide by Illinois law or relocate to another state" without such a rule or law."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/30/health/main1087267.shtml?CMP=OTC-RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=U.S._1087267
They were offered employment in another state in order to still have a job with walgreens AND not have to dispense these drugs.
That's why people don't like the boycott. Because calling for one is idiotic and just makes the people who are opposed to this bad law look bad by association.
Isn't Walgreens a publicly traded store? If so, they have more than a 'right' to follow the law. Their first obligation is to their owners, and in accordance with that, they have an obligation to follow the law.
Consumers have every right to take their business elsewhere. Even to organize a boycott. I just think it's stupid (and wrong) to boycott the weak party (Walgreens) instead of those who could change things.
Who has Walgreens given money to?
BTW, HIPPA aside, they should get the names of the doctors that prescribed the stuff and consider boycotting them.
And when one of those presciptions is presented. the pharmacist simply does not process it. And allows the person who presented it to leave and try at another pharmacy. Right.
OK, if I (finally) understand what you just posted, this is a no win situation for Walgreen’s.
Ignore the law on the books, they're in trouble with the law, and will end up in court. Ignore the contradicting executive order, and I imagine they could be hauled into court for ignoring the order.
Walgreen’s first obligation is to it's owners, the stockholders. Management evidently decided that the least risky path to follow was to follow the (illegal) executive order. Given the contradicting situation set up by the government, they're fulfilling their duty to stockholders
What I'm not understanding in all this is why some want to punish Walgreen's for being caught in situation beyond their control, and taking the rational path out. It's like expelling a student after he's jumped by a bully.
The more I read about this case the more convinced I am that there are two bullies involved. The state, and whoever it is that's leading the charge to punish Walgreen's for reacting in a rational mannner.
if they pressure a giant company like Walgreen's with many friends in the Legislature, all bought and paid for, Emperor Rodney may find himself in the way of shit rolling downhill. He is a Catholic, no? Why has he not been excommunicated?
Remember this is not a law passed by the Legislature but a rule by executive fiat.
OK, it wasn't passed by the legislature (I thought I had made that abundantly clear in my last post, I must not have). Does that mean there are no legal consequences to Walgreen's for disobeying it?
I don't know, but I'd guess there are legal consequences to Walgreens if they ignore it. The rational response by management in fulfilling their duties to the stockholders is to do what they did. Furthermore, the compassionate thing to do for their employees is to do what they did.
The irresponsible parties are the Governor, and those calling for a boycott of Walgreens. The Governor is doing it for political purposes, to cater to the Pro-Choice crowd. But why are the boycotters beating up on the innocent? Ignorance? Meanspiritedness?
It's more like "Ready...Fire...Aim!
When the customer walked into Osco and demanded that their prescriptions be filled, and the pharmacist refused, what DID Osco do?
I'd guess it hasn't happened yet. The Left doesn't usually work that way.
The Left has picked Walgreen's as their first target. Fortunately for the Lefties, the boycotters are falling in line behind them to help cripple Walgreen's. It won't take so long that way.
Osco will be easier.
Orthodox IS Catholic..perhaps more so than the Roman in some ways.
I wholeheartedly agree with your post, and in fact have tried to make the same argument (about the doctors being ordered to perform abortions) many times. Each time I get shot down and told 'they just need to do their jobs'. I just don't get it.
And allows the person who presented it to leave and try at another pharmacy. Right.
Of course this is what happens. Pharmacists are not confiscating these prescriptions from people, just asking them to go elsewhere. What's wrong with that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.