Wal-Mart ... The Evil Doer.

Wal-Mart to Cut Prices for Generic Drugs

Friday, September 22, 2006

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, plans to slash the prices of almost 300 generic prescription drugs, offering a big lure for bargain-seeking customers and presenting a challenge to competing pharmacy chains and makers of generic drugs.

The drugs will be sold for as little as $4 for a month's supply and include some of the most commonly prescribed medicines such as Metformin, a popular generic drug used to treat diabetes, and the high blood pressure medicine Lisinopril.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will launch the program Friday at 65 Wal-Mart, Neighborhood Market and Sams' Club pharmacies in Florida's Tampa Bay area. It will be expanded statewide in January and rolled out to the rest of the nation next year, company officials said Thursday.

The news sent the shares of big pharmacy chains like Walgreen's and CVS slumping because of fears that Wal-Mart's price cuts could cost them market share. Analysts said consumers will save an average of 20 percent and up to 90 percent in some cases. Shares of prescription drug management companies and some generic drugmakers fell as well.

Analysts said the risks to Wal-Mart are slim because profit margins on most of the drugs already are low _ and the program could help the Arkansas-based retailer address an image problem stemming from its policies on health insurance coverage for employees.

"They are doing something that may be good for consumers, but they don't have altruistic motives," said Patricia Edwards, a portfolio manager and retail analyst at Wentworth, Hauser & Violich in Seattle. "They are capitalists. They still need to make a profit."

Tampa Wal-Mart pharmacy customer Pat Sullivan, a retired Massachusetts police officer, said $4 generic prescriptions would be a tremendous help.

"I'm on disability and my benefits run out by the end of the month," he said. "It comes down to where do I go for a $100 prescription? I have no outlet other than to break a pill in half and take half today and half tomorrow."

The $4 prescriptions are not available by mail order and are being offered online only if picked up in person in the Tampa Bay area.

Bill Simon, executive vice president of the company's professional services division, told reporters that the generic drugs would not be sold at a loss to entice customers into the stores, a strategy that has been used in Wal-Mart's toy business.

"We're able to do this by using one of our greatest strengths as a company _ our business model and our ability to drive costs out of the system, and the model that passes those costs savings to our customers," he said at a Tampa Wal-Mart. "In this case, we're applying that business model to health care."

Simon said Wal-Mart is working with the 30 participating drug companies to help them be more efficient. "We are working with them as partners. We are not pressuring them to reduce prices," he said.

David W. Maris, an analyst at Banc of America, said in a report issued Thursday that the plan could "squeeze the generic manufacturers." But Kathleen Jaeger, president and CEO of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, disputed that, saying Wal-Mart's plan will have "little impact" on its members.

The initiative follows a series of moves by Wal-Mart to improve its health benefits since last October. They include relaxing eligibility requirements for its part-time employees who want health insurance, and extending coverage for the first time to the children of those employees. Last October, Wal-Mart offered a new lower-premium insurance aimed at getting more of its work force on company plans.

Wal-Mart's shares fell 41 cents to close at $48.46 in trading Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange. But shares of the nation's largest drug chain, Walgreen Co., slumped 7.4 percent and the stock of rivals CVS Corp. and Rite-Aid Corp. dropped more than 8 percent and more than 5 percent, respectively. Shares of generic drug makers Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s and Mylan Labs also fell, as did the stock of Caremark RX Inc., a pharmacy benefit manager firm.

Still, Rite-Aid and Walgreens executives both noted that Wal-Mart's list of the discounted generics contains only a small percent of the 1,500 and 1,800 generic drugs each offers, respectively.

Faced with soaring drug costs, consumers are increasingly turning to generic drugs, which often are made by multiple companies after the original patent on the medicines expire. The average monthly cost for a generic drug prescription is $28.74, according to the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. For branded drugs, that figure is $96.01.

The Generic Pharmaceutical Association, a trade association, said generic medicines account for 56 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in the United States, but only 13 percent of all dollars spent on prescription drugs.

___

Associated Press Writer Mitch Stacy in Tampa, Fla. and Shaila Dani in New York contributed to this report.

___

On the Web:

For a list of generic drugs to be sold at discounted prices and details about the program: http://www.walmartfacts.com



Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

If this brings down the price of drugs overall, then hooray. For some "unknown" reason, the citizens of the U.S. pay more for drugs than other countries, even though they are manufactured here! This is a positive step in Capitalism. For the Money spent fighting wars around the globe by the U.S., we could have free health care for every citizen. What a terrible Idea, stop fighting wars and take care of our citizens, bolderdash. Wal-mart Is a mixed bag with me, I like the low prices, but don't like the exploitation of workers in poor countries,and workers in the U.S. either. I have no clue as to how to keep prices low and pay reasonable wages. I don't think it possible, unless, the profit margin is too high in proportion to wages. Now V-Redd thats my opinion, please refrain from scolding me like a 10 year schoolboy!

Hey, no scolding here, nor was that my intention in other threads as well.

"For the Money spent fighting wars around the globe by the U.S., we could have free health care for every citizen."

There ain't no free lunch, Med .... The government has no money of its own, other than what it extracts from the production and the labors of citizens like you and me.

Vi

how much do US citizens get taken off their check for taxes, in Canada for example if you make over 80k i think its 30% or something like that

It is the poor that get shit on with the taxes here in Kanada.... when I am making 130+K a year, I can find MANY ways to get around the taxes, but when I was a poor pothead hippy (guess pothead and hippy go hand in hand....lol), well I had no ways of getting around it other then live like a hippy in the rain forest of Haida Gwaii for years.

Vred, you just don't get it. You must concede, that to have a civilised society, we must have some form of governence, to run this public entity, you must have taxation. I'll admit that our govt. is out of control. The free part means it is free to citizens for health care. Your right nothing is free, it's just deciding on how to spend the tax money that is supposed to better our society. I feel (emotion again) that spending our taxes on health care is a far better thing than spending it on war so the rich can get richer and the young men Die! There has been taxation as far back as you want to look. I'm no scholar on taxation, but I believe the Romans had a form of tax. You must have a monetary source for public programs. If left up to the Rich, the only bridges that would be built would be the ones to their private islands. fornicate, fornicate, fornicate!

See, you are assuming again. I am NOT against taxation at all. I am against the METHOD of taxation. I'm against a heavy, progressive income tax for the very same reason that I'm against the War on Drugs. You see, in a truely free society, it is none of the government's business what a citizen smokes, snorts, drinks or injects, as long as he/she doesn't violate the rights of another citizen in the process. By the same token, it is none of the government's business how much money a citizen makes, how he/she makes it, or how it is spent, as long as the rights of another citizen aren't violated in the process.

Liberty is liberty. We have a "slave" tax system in this country. Every citizen is assigned a Taxpayer I.D. number. Those in your party rail against a citizen I.D. card, just like those in my party do. But, it never occures to any of us that we already have one. Its called our Social Security Card. We cannot bank without it. We cannot open an account with a stock broker without it. We cannot buy or sell real estate without it. In other words, they have out financial liberty by the short-hairs. The goverrnment takes YOUR money out of your paycheck before you even see it. The money they take out represents a portion of your labor. That portion of labor they confiscate, they OWN. I've said it before ... what do you call a system, whereby your labor is owned by another? I call it slavery. The answer, in my opinion, is a simple sales tax with no write-offs except for food and medicine. And maybe a tax rebate for low income people.

Rollitup ...

To answer your question ... prior to Ronald Reagan taking office the maximum tax rate was over 70%. I believe its around 35% now. If Medical's Democratic party would have it's way, it would probably hover around 90%. For sure, they would roll back Bush's tax cuts.

Vi

Hmmm.......... Roll back the tax cuts for the rich, balance the budget, pull out of Iraq, now there's a sense of humor! Maybe we could even do away with K street, HAHAHAHAHA, I'm really laughing now! Maybe if we tried real hard we could find out about what Denny Hastert knew about Foley 3 years ago hahahahahahahahaha. See I've got a healthy sense of humor! The list of indescretions in congress is endless, both sides, just that the Republicans are in charge now, hahahahahahahaha, well I've about laughed myself out, gotta go!

Well, when you stop laughing, check out the libertarian party.

Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee

The Institute for Humane Studies - What is Libertarian?

Vi

has some merit> I took their test and came out a centrist that likes the status quo, not at all what I like, maybe I wasn't honest enough. Maybe I should have said communist, although thats not where I'm at either. I'm so confused!

Starting this again are we Vi?

Lothar of the Hill People said:

Starting this again are we Vi?

Click to expand...

You bet he is, and he thinks that all taxes are a tool of the devil.

Bush is the Devil, Don't you watch TV.

medicinaluseonly said:

has some merit> I took their test and came out a centrist that likes the status quo, not at all what I like, maybe I wasn't honest enough. Maybe I should have said communist, although thats not where I'm at either. I'm so confused!

Click to expand...

Good ... that means I'm making progress.

Lothar & Dank ...

Man, its great to see you guys here. Hey Dank, Medicinaluseronly has a nice hot rod that you would appreciate. Even though he grows in dirt, he's not such a bad guy.

Lots of nubies on this site to help out too.

Vi

Don't be tellin secrets about my Hot Rod, only my wife knows about that! lol.

Med ...

Here's another political party for you to check out:

Constitution Party National Political Headquarters

Here's where they stand on the issue of the income tax. Makes for interesting reading:

Taxes
The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States."
In Article I, Section 9, the original document made clear that "no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." It is moreover established that "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Since 1913, our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property have been abridged and diminished by the imposition on each of us of Federal income, payroll, and estate taxes. This is an unconstitutional Federal assumption of direct taxing authority.
The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of the Federal government's present unjust tax system. Citizens, both in groups and as individuals, have repeatedly sought responses from the IRS bureaucracy as to the basis for the agency's tax policies and procedures. No answers have been forthcoming although a responsible government must be answerable to the people and has a duty to those it is supposed to serve.
We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system. The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax.
Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.)
To the degree that tariffs on foreign products, and excises, are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned "state-rate tax" in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of the United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation's citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit.
The effect of this "state-rate tax" will be to encourage politicians to argue for less, rather than more, federal spending, and less state spending as well.
To the extent permitted by the Constitution, we believe that the taxation of corporations is an appropriate source of government revenue. The Supreme Court has defined "income" as a "gain or increase arising from corporate activity or privilege." People are not corporations, and corporations need not be treated as "people" for the purposes of taxation.
There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts."
We support the use of motor fuel excise taxes, at rates not in excess of those currently imposed, to be used exclusively for the erection, maintenance, and administration of Federal highways. These taxes should never be used for "demonstration projects", mass transit, or for other non-highway purposes.
We support the use of excise taxes to curb the use of tax dollars for media advertising, and to provide so-called "tax abatements," "tax incentives," and "economic development grants," which are pretexts to raid the public treasury and rob the workingman for the benefit of wealthy interests favored by the politicians

I suppose I can agree with what I understand, although there are some exceptions. What about Social Security, My major income source. Exactly what is an excise tax and on what commodities will it be leveraged. Conversly if you made it a state based tax, wouldnt all rich people move their residency to Montana or alaska and just have a summer home in L.A. or New York etc. I see this as being a rich mans tax, unfair to the working class and the death of social security as we know it. If you want to see resurection, stop paying social security benefits, and I'll guarantee the old folks like me will come out of the woodwork with guns blazing. I paid into that program for over fifty years, and you want to take away my benefits, Hell no! I'd rather die taking with me a few rich penuses. Storm the Bastille!

Well, Social Security needs to be privatized. Think about it for a moment. The government has taken the Social Security money out of your paycheck all of your working life, with the promise that it would be kept in a "trust fund" for your later use. They lied. There is NO trust fund. They never intended there to be a trust fund. All the money was taken by force from you and put into the general fund to fund other government programs. So now the money is being returned to you piecemeal ... and they have paid you an enormous interest rate of around 1.5 percent. Had you invested the same amount of money in the stock market, or mutual funds, you would be a millionaire and have a VERY comfortable retirement. Here's another thought ... if your were to die, God forbid, that would be the end of your Social Security payments. You cannot will your "trust fund" holdings to your children or grandchildren like you could an insurance policy, stock account or real estate. The Social Security program is, and always has been from the beginning, a scam.

Now, you probably want to know if I collect Social Security, right? Yes I do, and here's how I rationalize it: I had no choice in the matter. I was forced to contribute under threat of violence. So, all I am doing is trying to recoup what was taken from me by force, by a government who lied to me in the first place. If a private insurance company were to do business like our federal government does business in matters like social security ... the CEOs and other top management people would all go to prison. It makes the Enron debacle look like kindergarten.

Here's an interesting book for you to check out:

http://www.libertybookshop.us/mall/Social-Security-Swindle.htm

Vi

An excise tax is nothing more than a sales tax. And yes, the states should hold sway over the federal government. That was the purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ... to chain the powers of the federal governement. The states SHOULD be in competition with each other. That is the road to liberty. If one state becomes oppressive with its laws and/or taxes, then the citizens could just move to a more competitive state. This forces the states to be reasonable with their citizens ... or lose them. The Founding Fathers were some pretty intelligent people, in my estimation.

And, I hope you will take this in a good light ... but I notice in your posts that you are constantly bringing up the rich vs the poor. You've bought into the age-old class warfare agenda of the socialists/Marxists. There is NO limit on income or wealth creation in a free market society free of undue manipulation by government bureaucrats ... none. Personally, I think its a shame what this propaganda does to people. Again, my intention here is not to diss you at all ... but I DO see this mind set in way too many younger people these days ... and not so much in seniors like you and me.

Vi

maybe thats because there is no you and me, we're way too far apart on the economic scale to be you and me. There's you and then there's me. I've said on another blog that I wouldn't participate in a class war unless they came for my meager stash, but don't expect me to defend the Elites. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the arrogant arseholes brought down a notch, maybe have to go look for a job in this job climate to feed their families. And don't try and tell me the Bush bullshit about the economy. The only people doing well in this economy are the wealthy, you know it and so do I! Watch C-span once in a while. Watch the book reviews by noted authers, specialists in the economic fields, look and learn. All is not roses for the commoners (working class) in this society. No I don't take notes, I know what I know, and I don't have to prove it. Opinion only!