quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

I'm saying they get paid by the state to fill Medicaid prescriptions and that they reported record profits even while accepting Medicaid reimbursement.  There is nothing, absolutely nothing that suggests that they will LOSE money if they continue to accept Medicaid reimbursement for new patients.

I'm saying that a corporation needs to also be a good citizen. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


How do you think they get to the point that they show profits at all. Hint, its not through giving away the store. Why should the state expect businesses to lose money when doing business with it?

Again, if you want charity go see the Catholics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

I'm saying they get paid by the state to fill Medicaid prescriptions and that they reported record profits even while accepting Medicaid reimbursement.  There is nothing, absolutely nothing that suggests that they will LOSE money if they continue to accept Medicaid reimbursement for new patients.

I'm saying that a corporation needs to also be a good citizen. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

I'm saying they get paid by the state to fill Medicaid prescriptions and that they reported record profits even while accepting Medicaid reimbursement.  There is nothing, absolutely nothing that suggests that they will LOSE money if they continue to accept Medicaid reimbursement for new patients.

I'm saying that a corporation needs to also be a good citizen. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

if they allow that one state

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

As usual leave it to Sanity to grab a snippet and pretend that it is something it's not.

First this is an argument between the State of Washington and Walgreens.  You could have used that in the topic but it would not have the desired effect you wished.  Your defense will be, "But I only used the headline form the article".  Being in a Seattle paper that headline was meant for people in Washington. 

Second form personal experience if you want a prescription filled that your reaching in your own pocket and paying for, one of the last places I would want to go is Walgreens.  As stated by eyesopened above, Walgreens has huge profits.  this is about trying to protect those profits not losing money. 

If it were really about losing money they would cut all of the medicaid patients and happily let them go somewhere else. 

I guess you missed this part of the article,

     "The amount private insurers and Medicaid pay pharmacies for prescriptions isn't the actual cost of those drugs but rather
       is based on what's called the drug's estimated average wholesale price. But that figure is more like the sticker
       price on a car than its actual wholesale cost."

Then there was this part,

     "The average wholesale price is calculated by a private company, which was accused in a Massachusetts lawsuit
      of fraudulently inflating its figures. The company did not admit wrongdoing but agreed in a court settlement to
      ratchet its figures down by about 4 percent."

This is about protecting that huge profit and attempting to stop this before other states and/or private groups follow suit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Thats ridiculous. Crazy talk...

Say a restaurant chain wasn't losing money on some aspect of its business. Would you boycott them as well? Ben Franklin said a penny saved is a penny earned, and businessmen who manage to stay in business understand that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

WILLLLBUR,

It's so funny how neither you or Sanity will address the part of the article you want to skip.  You know the part about the company who sets the wholesale prices getting caught over inflating them.  How the state of Washington adjusted what they pay in line with the reduction that company made in the wholesale rate in another state.  How the actual issue here is not Walgreens losing money, which if they really were they would drop all of the medicare patients.  What they are screaming about is the State of Washington not following federal guidelines about pricing.  They are worried this is going to be a trend across all states as every state catches onto the fact that the wholesale price was inflated.

It's all in the article,  either of you want to talk about that?

Sorry wiiillllbur,  I saw you posted while I was writing this.

"IF" they are losing money it is by showing a loss of the scale which was shown to be inflated.  That is the scale everyone uses to set prices.  The company who sets the price reduced it in another state to avoid being sued. 

Keep up Wilbur this is embarrassing.   It's actually called fraud and price manipulation. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

if they allow that one state

Huh? How can they force a company to do business?

quote:

I look at it this way. Its 121 stores in one state. Wont hit their bottom line that hard. But, if they allow that one state, others will follow. Deleware was the first, Walgreens negotiated that one to a settlement. Its not that they arent going to fill any medicaid prescriptions... just no new patients. I see that as their attempt to still provide a service to their loyal customers. On them, they will continue to lose money. But i cant blame them for not taking in any new ones.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Ok Jim. So this is Obama's fault too? lol

The states themselves made these decisions, partly to help with the budget crunch most states found themselves in. The delaware dispute was june, 2009.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

You so funny Wilbur.

First Data Bank, the Pharmacies and the Drug Companies are all connected. 

Be a big boy, even you can connect the dots there.  First Data gets money from ____________ and then sets the drug prices for them.  Walgreens and several others are scared out of their panties that all of that is going to unravel.  You might want to also check some of the law suits that have been filed in that direction.

Its called price fixing and collusion.  There is a reason First Data Bank has moved so fast to make settlement on those suits.  neither them, the drug companies or the pharmacies want anyone in that can of worms. 

You should be made at Walgreens for defrauding the government.  Or is that just the American way to do business?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: flcouple2009

You so funny Wilbur.

First Data Bank, the Pharmacies and the Drug Companies are all connected. 

Be a big boy, even you can connect the dots there.  First Data gets money from ____________ and then sets the drug prices for them.  Walgreens and several others are scared out of their panties that all of that is going to unravel.  You might want to also check some of the law suits that have been filed in that direction.

Its called price fixing and collusion.  There is a reason First Data Bank has moved so fast to make settlement on those suits.  neither them, the drug companies or the pharmacies want anyone in that can of worms. 

You should be made at Walgreens for defrauding the government.  Or is that just the American way to do business?

That may be true, and if it is then they will pay for it. It has nothing to do with the fact that when reimbursements are cut under Blow-care there will be cuts in services and providers, which is the import of the OP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere
If they're not required to accept Medicaid, then it's perfect fair for them to make this decision. Even if it were making them money, if they don't want to, and aren't required to, nobody can do a thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
You know, any other store that illogically chooses to subsidize that kind of a state and federal welfare program will make up for the losses elsewhere.

And again, why should any business subsidize the state or the federal government. I'm sure they pay enough in taxes already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


You know, any other store that illogically chooses to subsidize that kind of a state and federal welfare program will make up for the losses elsewhere.

And again, why should any business subsidize the state or the federal government. I'm sure they pay enough in taxes already.