RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16

RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Dominatist -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 5:36:05 AM)
Oops, wrong.

Sanity -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 6:17:02 AM)
Why stop there. Why wouldn't you want us all to be government drones / slaves? Because thats your kind of logic is leading us. quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened 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. Are you then advocating that we have state owned and operated drug dispensories? I'm not opposed to that. Leave the retails stores out of it altogether!

barelynangel -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 6:28:12 AM)
So just out of curiosity - how many of you who think that a corporation should be a good citizens are willing to give up your job if these good citizen company's have to lay off employees or cut pay or NOT hire people? You know sometimes being a good citizen IS helping the average person -- being a good citizen doesn't mean you always have to focus on those who have nothing. Nowadays, most average citizens are struggling more especially if they are unemployed, and looking for jobs rather than looking for a company to pay medicaid. I don't know what Walgreens Also the article says that Walgreens ISN'T breaking even in the reimbursements. "which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to Medicaid patents. " And so far its in ONE state. And the article said they aren't TAKING NEW MEDICAID patients it didn't say they were kicking off existing ones. IF they continue not breaking even in this sector of the company, eventually employees will suffer because Walgreens would have to do something to make up that cost. I sometimes get tired of hearing about those who are on medcaid, welfare etc, when many people who aren't eligible for those programs are suffering also, and people don't get that when corporations don't break even, EMPLOYEES start suffering. BUt i guess that's okay as long the corportations appear to be good citizens to those who are on medicaid. What about being good citizens to EVERYONE? Perhaps the way this sector is going they are foreseeing loss of jobs in the future and are trying to stop that. OR maybe they see that by doing this they can HIRE people also? angel

Louve00 -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 7:07:23 AM)
Ok, I understand what you're saying, and agreed with Tazzy earlier in the thread that yes, with it being just one state, her POV was reasonable. As is yours. But, if you want to rehash it again, with me, fine. First of all, Walgreens can operate their business however they want to. If they feel they are somehow losing, despite the huge profits they made last year, more power to them, and yes...by all means, do something to correct that situation. If (as in Sanity's example) I found out an excellent restaurant or even my favorite restaurant I frequented had an unspoken rule that they only served black people thru the drive thru or a back take out window I would boycott them too. Despite that the restaurant owner may reason it is a predominately southern area, with white senior citizens who feel threatened by the sight of a black person and they would be losing business if they allowed a black person in their restaurant...which could lead to profit loss, lay offs, possibly going out of business, whatever. (And you may want to roll your eyes at my example, but its just an example, and living down here in the south, I know of one place, while it was never my favorite place, that does indeed do this with black people in this day, everyday.) Despite how you reason the why's of what a business does, does not mean that I have to agree with them. I can simply take my business elsewhere. Just like....if I thought my neighbor was not being a good neighbor, I would quit associating with them. Now, given all that, it has always been a known...a given, if you will....that medicare reimburses ALOT less than avg insurer's, which is why it is so hard for a medicaid pt to find a dr, pharmacy, etc. So, its not like after years of filling scripts this is suddenly just dawning on Walgreens. I do realize that we are all in difficult times and money is on everyones mind these days, so again, let Walgreens do with their business what they wish to. I can certainly spend my money where I wish to, too. But let me ask you something now, Angel. Do you think a business should be a good neighbor, being a benefit to the neighborhood that allows them to bring in the money they do...or do you think they should just go by numbers and make their determinations on that alone?

eyesopened -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 7:53:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Why stop there. Why wouldn't you want us all to be government drones / slaves? Because thats your kind of logic is leading us. quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened 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. Are you then advocating that we have state owned and operated drug dispensories? I'm not opposed to that. Leave the retails stores out of it altogether! No I'm asking what YOU are advocating. Where do you want the poor to get their medicine? If reatil business doesn't provide it, fine. They have that right. Obviously I am wrong to think a doc should give up his or her incentives from the drug companies and write scirpts for generics. Or are you advocating that medicine should only be for those who can afford to pay and if you can't afford medicine then you should just 'deal'? Probably not a bad idea, cuz then the population would self-adjust and the poor and disabled people might die before they reproduce. That might be cool because I get annoyed when I have to drive behind those stupid short busses and handicap vans.

mnottertail -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:02:42 AM)
But in the tortured and inviolate logic of those who say this will cause job loss in the corporations, and you allow the shortfingers to cakk because they cant afford there medicines, what will happen to the shortbus driver, will he not be laid off? Isn't there a corporation in there somewhere that have the buses and the drivers? What about poor them corporations?

MrRodgers -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:10:42 AM)
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. You have it correct of course young lady but we ought not hold our breath. The corporation doesn't exist to serve society. Society exists...to serve the corporation.

Sanity -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:11:13 AM)
I don't believe that there should be free government hammock for anything, though a safety net is needed. You say government should provide "the poor" with their medicine, then why not food as well. Thats just as vital, isn't it? As well as clothing, and shelter, and transportation... Why should "the poor" have any incentive to provide for themselves whatsoever. Why should any of us ever have to get out of bed at all, when the government can just do it all for us.

eyesopened -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:12:14 AM)
Sorry. Ron, I was trying to think of the best way to not care about others... I'm not very good at it. I was trying to think of its just me and I don't give a crap about anyone but me and by golly I've just seen corporations lay people off for no other reason than to make their investors happy. I'm not an investor, so I don't matter I guess.

Sanity -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:13:14 AM)
Oh, so replace corporations with bureaucrats... and everything will magically be free, we'll have a regular utopia. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But in the tortured and inviolate logic of those who say this will cause job loss in the corporations, and you allow the shortfingers to cakk because they cant afford there medicines, what will happen to the shortbus driver, will he not be laid off? Isn't there a corporation in there somewhere that have the buses and the drivers? What about poor them corporations?

Musicmystery -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:14:05 AM)
~FR~ If a corporation isn't doing well, it's for a host of business reasons, not for any one blamed public reason. After all, all the successful competitors are facing the same business climate.

mnottertail -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:14:21 AM)
You said that, I didn't. If thats your opinion, thats your opinion.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:16:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened Sorry. Ron, I was trying to think of the best way to not care about others... I'm not very good at it. I was trying to think of its just me and I don't give a crap about anyone but me and by golly I've just seen corporations lay people off for no other reason than to make their investors happy. I'm not an investor, so I don't matter I guess. Its not just you. There are a lot of people who would drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator. You may even be becoming the majority. I pity what that will cost my grandchildren in lost opportunity and quality of life.

eyesopened -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:16:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I don't believe that there should be free government hammock for anything, though a safety net is needed. You say government should provide "the poor" with their medicine, then why not food as well. Thats just as vital, isn't it? As well as clothing, and shelter, and transportation... Why should "the poor" have any incentive to provide for themselves whatsoever. Why should any of us ever have to get out of bed at all, when the government can just do it all for us. You have never worked with Downs Syndrome adults have you? Or a host of other disabilities that prevent human beings from providing for themselves. Fuck you.

barelynangel -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:25:51 AM)
LouveOO, my reply was a fast reply and not to you personally -- if you thought it was then please let this clarify. I am seriously simply tired of people acting as if the people on welfare and medicaid are the only ones who need help in this country. This COMPANY, in one state, had determined to take NO NEW medicaid people. Let's not forget that there are pharmacies pretty much in EVERY grocery store in our country so i really don't think that the medicaid new people will have it hard OTHER THAN the slight inconvenience of having to go to another store. So in all actuality, Walgreens may be causing people an inconvenience NOT a hardship. Second, I am sure Walgreens has done a lot to try and get the GOVERNMENT who made this agreement with regard to medicaid and corporations such as Walgreens and such to get the payment that was agreed. And since the govenment is flacking on that agreement, the corporation is making a reverse decision of a prior decision because the prior decision was based upon a good - faith believe that it would be reimbursed appropriately. So its Walgreens who is the evil - not a good citizen because it decided to pull out of an agreement in ONE state with regard to NEW people for medicaid, rather than continue in a downspiral of losing money? That is the problem with this country, people believe that company's have to help people the way THEY determine for it to be a good thing. Has anyone else looked at charitable contributions that help those less fortunate OTHER than losing money on medicaid? So who exactly are they hurting -- now i could see the issue IF they threw off the medicaid people they already had, but how are they hurting anyone by not accepting NEW medicaid people? Inconvenience sure, hurting no. I think people are being overly dramatic claiming this is some huge thing that will hurt when in all actuality all its doing is inconveniencing. The medicaid people simply will have to go to a different place to get their medication. They will still get their medication. I believe corporations should help people in their communities. To me, corporations don't HAVE to and shouldn't cater to those less fortunate -- help sure, but cater to at the risk of harming THEIR business -- no. I like Walgreens and see nothing wrong with this. That is a business decision they have decided to make in a state. It may cause some inconvenience to those new to walgreens pharmacy, but harm them -- no, i don't believe so. If they bump those already in the Walgreens pharmacy, then i may agree with some of the views, but to me the reaction to this seems slighly overdramatic. I would rather Walgreens take any money this saves them and put it toward helping those who CAN'T get their medication (of which there are probably more people who need mediation in our country than people on medicaid), rather than bitch and moan that people who have medicaid may have to go to another store. Whether it does or not, won't change my view, but it would be a nice gesture to prove a point of good faith agreements. angel

Elisabella -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:26:52 AM)
-FR- For those who don't understand how business works. Joe opens a shop. Joe sells shirts, sunnies and shoes. Joe makes $10k profit on shoes, $5k profit on shirts and loses $8k on sunnies. Joe makes a total profit of $7k Joe stops selling sunnies. Joe makes a total profit of $15k. Saying "they made an overall profit" means they won't go out of business - it doesn't mean they won't cut the services that have deficit - saying "they made a total profit off of their scripts, merchandise, cigarettes, etc" is NOT the same as saying "supporting medicare scripts was profitable for them."

flcouple2009 -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:27:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Why stop there. Why wouldn't you want us all to be government drones / slaves? Because thats your kind of logic is leading us. quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened 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. Are you then advocating that we have state owned and operated drug dispensories? I'm not opposed to that. Leave the retails stores out of it altogether! No I'm asking what YOU are advocating. Where do you want the poor to get their medicine? If reatil business doesn't provide it, fine. They have that right. Obviously I am wrong to think a doc should give up his or her incentives from the drug companies and write scirpts for generics. Or are you advocating that medicine should only be for those who can afford to pay and if you can't afford medicine then you should just 'deal'? Probably not a bad idea, cuz then the population would self-adjust and the poor and disabled people might die before they reproduce. That might be cool because I get annoyed when I have to drive behind those stupid short busses and handicap vans. ding ding ding, both medicaid and medicare denote the use of generics unless there is none available. How do you lose so much money on drugs that aren't for the most part even being prescribed? Oh wait, Walgreens hasn't actually offered anything to show this lose. Here's clue for the more challenged among us, if it were actually the case that they were losing this money why not just dump all of those customers.

flcouple2009 -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:31:17 AM)
sorry about the double post

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:31:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flcouple2009 quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Why stop there. Why wouldn't you want us all to be government drones / slaves? Because thats your kind of logic is leading us. quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened 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. Are you then advocating that we have state owned and operated drug dispensories? I'm not opposed to that. Leave the retails stores out of it altogether! No I'm asking what YOU are advocating. Where do you want the poor to get their medicine? If reatil business doesn't provide it, fine. They have that right. Obviously I am wrong to think a doc should give up his or her incentives from the drug companies and write scirpts for generics. Or are you advocating that medicine should only be for those who can afford to pay and if you can't afford medicine then you should just 'deal'? Probably not a bad idea, cuz then the population would self-adjust and the poor and disabled people might die before they reproduce. That might be cool because I get annoyed when I have to drive behind those stupid short busses and handicap vans. ding ding ding, both medicaid and medicare denote the use of generics unless there is none available. How do you lose so much money on drugs that aren't for the most part even being prescribed? Oh wait, Walgreens hasn't actually offered anything to show this lose. Here's clue for the more challenged among us, if it were actually the case that they were losing this money why not just dump all of those customers. They have their P&L statements by line to show the this loss. Remember, the old "cash in - cash out" that determines whether something is profitable? Why not dump all of them? Maybe they are actually being "good citizens" as defined in this thread and decided not to incovenience a large group of people with changing.

Elisabella -> RE: Walgreens: no new Medicaid patients as of April 16 (3/19/2010 8:34:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Why not dump all of them? Maybe they are actually being "good citizens" as defined in this thread and decided not to incovenience a large group of people with changing. This. The PR disaster of refusing to serve existing customers is a lot more problematic than refusing to accept new customers. No sob stories about how "granny got her scripts at Walgreens for the past 50 years and today she got sent away" or anything.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875