Posted on 12/02/2006 10:47:22 AM PST by grundle
Wal-Mart boasts that its new $4 generic drug program is disrupting the market, attracting new customers to its stores and starting the nation on a road that will ultimately squeeze billions of dollars from prescription drug spending.
“I was never a customer of Wal-Mart,” said Frank Ganci, 74, a retired independent contractor who lives in Ridgefield, N.J. He has no drug insurance, despite being eligible for it under Medicare, because he considers the monthly premiums too high.
Mr. Ganci said he recently paid $12 for a month’s supply of three generic drugs at the Wal-Mart in Secaucus — atenolol for a leaky heart valve and two blood pressure drugs, hydrochlorothiazide and lisinopril.
His drugs had cost him $110 at his local pharmacy last month, he said. More than half of that was spent on a name-brand drug, which his doctor switched to generic atenolol so that he could buy it under the Wal-Mart program.
The $4 prescriptions have turned him into a Wal-Mart shopper, Mr. Ganci said. “If they don’t make up the money on prescriptions, they’re going to make it up on my clothes and food purchases.”
Wal-Mart said earlier this week that in nine other states — including California, Minnesota and Pennsylvania — it had taken 55 drugs off the $4 list and was charging $9 for them in deference to state regulations that prohibit pricing below cost if doing so could drive competing stores out of business.
“These states have low-cost laws, and we wanted to be in compliance,” said David Tovar, a Wal-Mart spokesman. While the laws vary, Mr. Tovar said, the $9 price seemed to comply with them all.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
WalMart PING................
I seriously contemplated hitting my Nanny State list. I've got a serious problem with the government controlling prices in an allegedly free market.
This shows the hypocrisy out there. Walmart lowers the cost and now they are griping it is unfair. I worked for a well known drug store and I know they are all charging well above the cost. Don't buy it, this is one of the reasons costs are so high!
Natural competition is a good thing. Outside of certain contexts, however, artificially-maintained competition is a bad thing.
To be sure, there are times artificially-maintained competitiveness is a good thing. In some sports, for example, the goal of a league is to stage many competitive games, rather than to try to work to establish the world's best team. What good would it do for the NFL to concentrate revenues on the best teams so that there were only a couple of teams that dominated everything?
California's electrical market was an illustrative example of artificial competition. In a real competitive market, companies will try to bet on future electrical costs by purchasing what amount to electricity futures. Of course, companies that make good purchases will have an enormous advantage over those that do not; this will allow them to sell electricity to consumers at lower prices. California didn't like that idea, though. They instead forbid companies from doing things that would allow them to compete agressively, thus maintaining a market in which all players were "competitive" because none could actually compete.
Your conceit is like expecting the blacks to change their voting habits.
Yes, thank heavens for the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule. That will help everybody.
-ccm
Thank you Wisconsinstan. Wisconsinstan is one of the states that have this ridiculous law.
Baloney. Price fixing by the gubbmint is proportionate to how much money is "donated" to the pols by lobbyists, plain and simple.
FMCDH(BITS)
Not permitting below cost selling is not price fixing, it's part of an economic regulatory practice that prevents predatory pricing. Selling below cost prevents the seller from driving competitors from the market whcih then allows the predatory seller to recoup his losses caused during his below cost selling period by charging non-competitive prices. In federal law it's part of Section Two of the Sherman Act and several states have similar laws. The concept has been part of our laws since at least 1924 and perhaps back to the Sherman Act's passage in 1880.
Oh, yeah. Wisconsin legislators were b*tchin' about this ten minutes after it was announced. *Rolleyes*
I'm going to let the dust settle then see what I can do to reduce DH's med expenses each month. either way our company (which means US) pays for them, but every penny counts!
It'll either be Wal-Mart or Walgreens, which will nearly match Wal-Mart (and which is three minutes from me, versus a good twenty.)
No, sir, it's to get you in the store so you will maybe buy other things. Loss leaders are fair.
Your repugnant derogation is outrageously offensive to hammers everywhere.
Same here, and I can use the drive-through pharmacy at Walgreens, as opposed to navigating through herds of humanity on foot.
"Your conceit is like expecting the blacks to change their voting habits."
They don't care about taxes, they don't pay any. They do care about the price of rx drugs. That is what this thread is about!
I will be driving 35 miles to a town tomorrow that has a Walmart. While not the only reason for going to the town, Alpena, Michigan, I will be stopping at Walmart. I try to spend money at WalMart as much as I can because of the attacks on it by the communazi unions.
Rite Aid will also match the price, or so they told me.
"It's done to make it 'fair' to those who cry the loudest about 'unfair competition'."
In case you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.
Hence the quotation marks.
You'd think Wal-Mart would make Ralph Nader proud. Not wanting to be subsidized by the gov't and everything.
Pennsylvania. Why am I not surprised?
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.