Quote of the Day

Stephanie wrote:Somehow I think Sam is under the misguided impression that pharmacies receive the same fee no matter who pays. Not at all true. The pharmacies sign contracts with all of the major health insurers. Those big insurance companies reimburse at much lower rates than the medium size ones who reimburse at substantially lower rates than folks who must pay out of pocket.

Steph, I'm not sure what you were trying to tell me, ..... but apparently you had some point you were trying to make. You aren't confusing pharmacists with doctors, are you?

Steph, every health insurer has a different "co-pay" scheme.

Contracts or no contracts, ...... pharmacies are not going to lose money on the drugs they sell, ......... are they?

Now I can buy meds at the Burnsville Drug Store, which is owned and operated by Dr. Katina, which is in the same building as his Clinic, and which has one Pharmacist and one clerk, and is no bigger than a 1 stall garage including the waiting area, ......... for the same co-pay ..... as I can buy those same meds at the Right Aide, QVC, WalMart or Kroger pharmacies in Weston 20 miles north, or the two pharmacies in Glenville 18 miles west or the three at Gassaway-Sutton area 23 and 19 miles south.

Stephanie wrote:Now I have been out of that racket for a while, but I'm willing to bet Medicare and Medicaid still tell CVS & Walmart & tiny little Ocean State Pharmacy back in Hope Valley RI exactly what they are going to pay for a given medication. No negotiating.....you want to participate you take what they pay. Period.

YUP, and the OTHER customers have to "pay the difference".

Stephanie wrote:That's the way it works in hospitals, and doctors offices and dental offices and labs and every aspect of the healthcare industry. To suggest the reason there is a shortage of pharmacists because there is a glut of pharmacies is silly. If there were too many pharmacies they wouldn't be all be able to afford to stay in business and keep opening new ones.

HA, are you serious?

Steph, you need to figure out how the "system" works.

The drug companies get the government and other health insurance companies "to approve their drugs".

Then the drug companies advertise the hell out of "those drugs" and the people tell their Doctors that is what they need.

Then the drug companies reps ...... wine n' dine and conjole the Doctors (and their staff) into prescribing those drugs for their patients.

Stephanie wrote:The reason they keep opening new ones in every supermarket and strip mall is because there are so many Americans on prescription drugs.....some of them life saving, some of them to varying degrees improve the quality of life. Some of those drugs just make the likes of Pfizer and Merck very very wealthy.

You got that right, ........ but you forgot to include the Doctors and the pharmacies along with Pfizer and Merck, etc.

.

SFCraig,

I think it's telling that you make 6 figures, just bought two new cars, and begrudge the Bush tax cuts that have removed a great many lower-income families from the tax rolls completely, including my own family's.

I don't have a problem with feeding people whatsoever. I also think highly of people having access to healthcare. I would like to see the Iraqi troops defend their own country. But just because the Democrats say that want such things does not mean that they can be trusted with doing them.

My husband had a pharmacist refuse to fill an rx a doctor had written for him because although the doctor was told my husband is allergic to penicillin, his doctor prescribed him penicillin! Should that pharmacist have just dispensed that rx as written?

All of the medications that you are taking are not necessarily at your doctor(s) fingertips. They are at your pharmacist's fingertips, in the computer. I agree, in your situation, the MD dropped the ball. Since your husband presumably knows he is allergic, why would he try and fill it in the first place?

Regardless, the situations are different - avoiding a drug interaction and refusing to fill a scrib because of your "beliefs" are worlds apart.

Also, Craig is right. The mom and pops have been run out by the Wal-marts and the Krogers.

The best you have is a PROPOSED law, not an actual law that has been passed and tested in court, a nearly 100 year old constitutional amendment that passed the constitutional mustard and Christmas.

And that's it?

Hell, you're making my point for me Lib!!!

I am saying that the zealous are trying to legislated their beliefs every day.

You can't deny that.

How about laws against prostitution? Initiated for religious reasons of by religious" family groups in about every case.

How about the faith-based charity law. The money went, overwhelmingly to christian groups. Some of them were fined because the money was used to proselytize. Nope, nobody in government plays favorites with religion.

Lie, deny, cry. Doesn't change the facts.

So if I can't prove a negative, that's supposed to prove your right? For such a smart feller, you're really dumb sometimes TC.

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. It isn't a negative, however. I know kids that have ridden the pine or failed to make a team because they weren't, how did it go - "team players". Why? Because they wouldn't bow their heads for prayer in the locker room.

I know that this kind of discrimination exists, Aaron. I don't need for you to believe it or care if you do.

As baby boomers get older this trend will continue to grow and the demand for pharmacists will grow right along with it. For my friend Terry or anyone else to suggest that it is more important that I am able to have an rx for ECP's , or even ordinary birth control, at any pharmacy during any hours of operation is more important than making sure my mother-in-law in rural Holmes County Ohio is able to go to the nearest pharmacy (20 minutes away) and get her heart medication filled is simply lunacy.

Not to Mrs. Terry. Meds are meds. Particularly if Mrs. Terry has painful and or complicated periods. What if Mrs. Terry is at grave risk to her heatlh if she gets pregnant due to endometriosis or similar condition?

You do not get to decide who gets priority in their meds and what meds should get priority.

There are alternatives to Mrs. Terry's birth control pills and there are much better alternatives to killing your unborn child by ingesting a pill. Terry's wife won't die without the pill, my MIL will very likely die without her meds.

You are deciding what meds Mrs. Terry should get? Listen to yourself.

Your MIL's right to her drugs doesn't trump my right to get any drug Mrs. Terry's MD might prescribe. That's America.

TerryRC wrote:The best you have is a PROPOSED law, not an actual law that has been passed and tested in court, a nearly 100 year old constitutional amendment that passed the constitutional mustard and Christmas.

And that's it?

Hell, you're making my point for me Lib!!!

I am saying that the zealous are trying to legislated their beliefs every day.

You can't deny that.

Key word...TRYING. You still haven't provided proof of what you say is the government legislating their religious beliefs and shoving it down your throat.

TerryRC wrote:How about laws against prostitution? Initiated for religious reasons of by religious" family groups in about every case.

I believe some types of Prostitution should be legal there are health and safety concerns with the issue. It's not a cut and dried religious issue and it certainly doesn't equate to government sponsored religion.

TerryRC wrote:How about the faith-based charity law. The money went, overwhelmingly to christian groups. Some of them were fined because the money was used to proselytize. Nope, nobody in government plays favorites with religion.

So the government doles out money (unconstitutionally) to various 'community' organizations, some of which are faith based (not one particular faith mind you) and then later they find a group proselytizing with the money, they punish them and this is supposed to be someone shoving their religious beliefs down your throat? Please. That's not a state sponsored religion Lib, that's socialism. The government shouldn't be doling out money unconstitutionally to begin with but at least they're abiding by the 1st Amendment and not sponsoring religion.

Lie, deny, cry. Doesn't change the facts.[/quote]

I know. So why do you continue???

TerryRC wrote:So if I can't prove a negative, that's supposed to prove your right? For such a smart feller, you're really dumb sometimes TC.

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. It isn't a negative, however. I know kids that have ridden the pine or failed to make a team because they weren't, how did it go - "team players". Why? Because they wouldn't bow their heads for prayer in the locker room.

Then why didn't you take it up with the coach and call him for exactly what he is, a bigot and if you got no satisfaction with him then take it to the school, the county, the state and if you still got no satisfaction, take it to the court system? It's because of people like you that knowingly let wrongs like that occur, setting on your butt doing nothing that allows crap like that to exits.

TerryRC wrote:I know that this kind of discrimination exists, Aaron. I don't need for you to believe it or care if you do.

I'm sure it does but it doesn't equal state sponsored religion or the government 'legislating' their religious beliefs. It equals a dumb assed bigoted coach.

My question to you is, if you knew it happened, why didn’t you do something about it?

Key word...TRYING. You still haven't provided proof of what you say is the government legislating their religious beliefs and shoving it down your throat.

So blue laws don't exist? Sodomy laws were never on the books (some still are).

I like to tell the story of a brilliant man named Mark Clifton. Born in 1911, he taught rural school in OK at the age of 13. He was fired a year or two later for teaching evolution. He went on to be a well loved sci-fi and non-fiction writer.

I believe some types of Prostitution should be legal there are health and safety concerns with the issue. It's not a cut and dried religious issue and it certainly doesn't equate to government sponsored religion.

In this day and age, bull crap. Nevada seems to have little trouble with it.

Heard someone the other day propose that "Jesus Christ" be considered public obscenity.

So the government doles out money (unconstitutionally) to various 'community' organizations, some of which are faith based (not one particular faith mind you) and then later they find a group proselytizing with the money, they punish them and this is supposed to be someone shoving their religious beliefs down your throat? Please. That's not a state sponsored religion Lib, that's socialism. The government shouldn't be doling out money unconstitutionally to begin with but at least they're abiding by the 1st Amendment and not sponsoring religion.

When all of the money goes overwhelmingly to one religion, you don't see that as a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Whatever.

Then why didn't you take it up with the coach and call him for exactly what he is, a bigot and if you got no satisfaction with him then take it to the school, the county, the state and if you still got no satisfaction, take it to the court system? It's because of people like you that knowingly let wrongs like that occur, setting on your butt doing nothing that allows crap like that to exits.

Not having a kid or living in those districts, I had no right to bring a case. Say I did, have the right and brought one. Right wing asshats would call me a whiner and accuse me of using the courts to take prayer out of schools. Would you be in that crowd?

We put religious beliefs on a pedestal in this country. If you attack someone's religious beliefs, you are perceived as a bad person.

No other types of argument are given that kind of sacredness. Bush says that we need to do something because god tells him to and nobody bats an eye.

I submit that is foolish.

Regardless, there are many examples of US governments, from the fed down to municipalities, attempting to legislate their religious beliefs. Sometimes they are successful.

Denying that is typical of you

TerryRC wrote:Key word...TRYING. You still haven't provided proof of what you say is the government legislating their religious beliefs and shoving it down your throat.

So blue laws don't exist? Sodomy laws were never on the books (some still are).
I like to tell the story of a brilliant man named Mark Clifton. Born in 1911, he taught rural school in OK at the age of 13. He was fired a year or two later for teaching evolution. He went on to be a well loved sci-fi and non-fiction writer.

USED TO BE. This is the garbage you come up with to support your argument. What someone is TRYING to do, an old law from a hundred years ago that if prosecuted would be tossed in a nano second and story from a hundred years ago. I've ask you 4 or 5 times to provide a link to current case law and you refer me to Christmas. I won't be surprised if you blame GWB for the crusades next.

And you spout about Sam not admitting when he's wrong. Face it Lib, your conspiracy theory's got more holes then a sieve.

TerryRC wrote:I believe some types of Prostitution should be legal there are health and safety concerns with the issue. It's not a cut and dried religious issue and it certainly doesn't equate to government sponsored religion.

In this day and age, bull crap. Nevada seems to have little trouble with it.

You do realize that Nevada does not allow prostitution in any county with a population exceeding 400K, which means it is illegal in both Las Vegas and Reno. So do you think they made it illegal in two of the largest gambling city's in the US for religious reasons or do you think there were other motivating factors?

TerryRC wrote:Heard someone the other day propose that "Jesus Christ" be considered public obscenity.

And? You were offended? It upset you? I fail to see your point other then someone saying that IS NOT legislating their religious beliefs. It's their personal opinion and whether you like it or not, they have a right to that.

TerryRC wrote:So the government doles out money (unconstitutionally) to various 'community' organizations, some of which are faith based (not one particular faith mind you) and then later they find a group proselytizing with the money, they punish them and this is supposed to be someone shoving their religious beliefs down your throat? Please. That's not a state sponsored religion Lib, that's socialism. The government shouldn't be doling out money unconstitutionally to begin with but at least they're abiding by the 1st Amendment and not sponsoring religion.

When all of the money goes overwhelmingly to one religion, you don't see that as a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Whatever.

You say that but you've never offered any proof whatsoever. So post a link. Provide something other then more of your BS.

TerryRC wrote:Then why didn't you take it up with the coach and call him for exactly what he is, a bigot and if you got no satisfaction with him then take it to the school, the county, the state and if you still got no satisfaction, take it to the court system? It's because of people like you that knowingly let wrongs like that occur, setting on your butt doing nothing that allows crap like that to exits.

Not having a kid or living in those districts, I had no right to bring a case. Say I did, have the right and brought one. Right wing asshats would call me a whiner and accuse me of using the courts to take prayer out of schools. Would you be in that crowd?

Did you go to the coach and say something? Or does sticking up for a kid require residency?

And since when do you have to live in a district to do what's right? That's just sad man.

TerryRC wrote:We put religious beliefs on a pedestal in this country. If you attack someone's religious beliefs, you are perceived as a bad person.

No other types of argument are given that kind of sacredness. Bush says that we need to do something because god tells him to and nobody bats an eye.

I submit that is foolish.

Yes, it is foolish. But the only place you're willing to say anything is here because you're pre-occupied with what others think.

TerryRC wrote:Regardless, there are many examples of US governments, from the fed down to municipalities, attempting to legislate their religious beliefs. Sometimes they are successful.

Denying that is typical of you

You keep saying that but you've yet to offer any type of proof. You're all huff no puff Lib.

SheikBen wrote:
I was the best man in a wedding in Charleston, WV some time ago and friends of the groom from Berkeley, California, flew into Chicago and then I drove them the rest of the way. We stopped for gas in Sadieville, Kentucky, and they almost lost their minds. Three ZZ Top looking fellers were running the joint, and the "common woman" (who was proud of that fact) expressed how frightened she was of such people.

The more I thought about this the more it irritates me. You say you lived here before? Certainly you know there are tons or rural people here, driving pickups, bucktoothed, the whole works.

We have lots of agriculture, but more than that, we have had a large presence of Hell's Angels (think they even started here), countless other biker clubs, hippies, Black Panthers. I can't imagine anyone in the Bay being surprised to see people who "look different".

Hell, how can you tell a "ZZTop" looking guy from a normal hippie?

I know are a secret "class-struggle" guy, but your caricature is entirely false.

SFCraig,

I can tell you the woman's name, the date of the "ZZ Top affair," and her stated fear AND revulsion.

I understand that like "working class Republicans" who got tax cuts, and racist democrats, intolerant people from the Bay do not exist, but "I saw what I saw and I heard what I heard."

Of course, SFCraig, IU'm sure if the two fellers were gay or had peace signs tattoed on their arses, Miss Jan would have had no problem with them whatsoever.

TerryRC wrote:My husband had a pharmacist refuse to fill an rx a doctor had written for him because although the doctor was told my husband is allergic to penicillin, his doctor prescribed him penicillin! Should that pharmacist have just dispensed that rx as written?

All of the medications that you are taking are not necessarily at your doctor(s) fingertips. They are at your pharmacist's fingertips, in the computer. I agree, in your situation, the MD dropped the ball. Since your husband presumably knows he is allergic, why would he try and fill it in the first place?

Regardless, the situations are different - avoiding a drug interaction and refusing to fill a scrib because of your "beliefs" are worlds apart.

Also, Craig is right. The mom and pops have been run out by the Wal-marts and the Krogers.

It wasn't written as "penicillin", rather some drug that contained it. He simply didn't know...not that he could read it to begin with.

I used the example of the pharmacist & that rx to demonstrate pharmacists are responsible for a whole lot more than just handing over whatever a doctor scribbles on a slip of paper.

Walmart & Krogers & Co. are killing off everything else, I agree. That does nothing to explain or address the shortage of pharmacists.

Stephanie wrote:

TerryRC wrote: Also, Craig is right. The mom and pops have been run out by the Wal-marts and the Krogers.

Walmart & Krogers & Co. are killing off everything else, I agree. That does nothing to explain or address the shortage of pharmacists.

HORSEPUCKY

Neither of you know what you are talking about ...... and thus you are "throwing all the blame" onto the largest retailers, ........ when in fact the majority of the blame is the fault, ...... iffen you want to call it "fault", ........ of the Distributor and/or Manufacturer.

The First Rule of business is: Don't be worrying about what price you are gonna sell it for, ...... worry about what you are gonna hafta pay for it.

Thus, all successful retailers attempt to purchase the goods they want to sell for the least amount they can. The less they pay for an item, the less they can sell it for, ..... which is what the customer wants.

And the only way a retailer can "pay less" for an item is if the distributor or manufacturer ...... sells it to them "for less".

And "DUH", therein lies "the fault" ....... directly on the shoulders of the distributors and/or manufacturers ……. because they sell their goods at a “cheaper price” …… based solely on the quantity purchased.

A distributor makes BIG PROFITS by delivering more product to less locations.

Aka, a beer or soda pop distributor makes MORE PROFIT by delivering 500 cases each to 5 different WalMarts ………… than they would by delivering 10 cases each to 250 different Mom n’ Pop stores.

GEEEZUS, most distributors will no longer deliver product to the M&P’s any more, ……. and if they do, the cost will be 50% to 150% more than if the M&P’s went to WalMart and purchased it there.

When my buddy operated a Service Station here in Burnsville he could purchase his weekly “supply” of soda pop from another retailer here …… at almost $3 cheaper per case than it would have cost him purchasing it from the Distributor. The Distributor DIDN’T WANT HIS BUSINESS.

And thus “the distributors” are the primary “faulters” for the demise of the Mom n’ Pop retailers.

CHEERS

ps: And if you don't believe me, .......just call 7 or 10 Distributors and tell them you are "planning" on opening up a little M&P in an out-of-the-way place and "just when could you expect them to start making 'deliveries' to your new business".



.

OK, so explain to me how the distributors are to blame for the shortage of pharmacies in this country.

Stephanie wrote:OK, so explain to me how the distributors are to blame for the shortage of pharmacies in this country.

Now wait a durn minute thar, ....... I never stated or even implied that there was "a shortage of pharmacies in this country".

On the contrary, my postings implied that there is a glut of pharmacies ..... with more being built every day. And the more they build ....... the more pharmacists that are needed to staff them.

But anyway, the distributors are to blame for the demise and/or the lack of new "Mom or Pop pharmacies".

GEEEZE, a Mom or Pop pharmacy can't "make it" ...... just by selling prescription drugs ........ unless they were situated right beside a Clinic staffed with several Doctors writing boo-koo perscriptions.

And the same goes for a WalMart or Kroger pharmacy.

A Mom or Pop pharmacy, like any other "Mom n Pop" store, has to depend on selling a variety of goods just to keep their doors open. And if they have to pay "the distributors" a premium price for those goods ........... then they have to retail those good for a "premium price" as compared to what the WalMarts, the K-Marts, the Go-Marts and the Krogers can retail them for.

Steph, a "Mom n Pop" store can't beat ...... or even match ..... the retail price of beer, bread, milk, soda pop, snacks, etc., etc. of a Go-Mart.

And that is because when the home office of Go-Mart at Gassaway, .... places an order with the distributor of those products, ........ the "quantity" ordered is for all 100+- Go-Mart stores.

Go-Mart doesn't buy beer and sodas by the "hundred case lots", ..... they buy it by the "thousand case lots". And loaves of bread, ..... they buy enough that the bakery puts a "Go-Mart wrapper" on each loaf.

Kapish.

.

Geez, Sherm.......I had to be somewhere this morning and was in a HUGE rush. (I have witnesses LOL)

Please ignore that post. Let me have a do-over! LOL

So explain to me how the distributors are to blame for the shortage of pharmacists in this country?

Steph, methinks you got ole' Sherm confused with SamCogar this time.

Now ole' Sherm did get carried away with his condescending b.s. to you earlier today. But hell, he's done left town now, and you gotta get along with the rest of us the rest of the week.

Sherm won't be back on here 'til at least Saturday. So shrug off his juvenile faux self-pitty and be good to yourself.

Don't mind me. It isn't the rushing, it isn't Sherm or Sam....it's another senior moment. I am turning 44 after all! LOL

You say that but you've never offered any proof whatsoever. So post a link. Provide something other then more of your BS.

Aaron, I have provided you with links to news articles that detailed abuses of the faith-based charity system. I showed you the FED's own records as to how that money was disbursed. You ignored them.

Every day new religiously based legislature is proposed. Some of it, like the above, gets through.

Stay ignorant, if you like. Just don't expect me to waste more time on it.

Yes, it is foolish. But the only place you're willing to say anything is here because you're pre-occupied with what others think.

Have you seen me say anything about anything anywhere else. No. That is because the only place you know me from is this board.

That makes your statement a baseless ad hom attack. If this is the example you set your kids, no wonder so many in this coming generation are rude, self-righteous and lack critical thinking skills.

Good for you, Aaron. You have done your bit in the dumbing down of this country.

TC, the only thing you've shown here is hundred year old laws, Christmas and PROPOSED legislation. The simple fact of the matter is, this country was founded on Christian principals and those principals still guide this nation and there is nothing in the constitution that makes that guidance illegal.

All laws are proposed based on one’s moral and/or ethical values, which is perfectly legal so long as it does not result in state sponsored religion. You’ve not shown one law, either on the books or proposed that does that. You're letting your hatred of Christianity cloud your judgment. You really need to work on that.

The simple fact of the matter is, this country was founded on Christian principals and those principals still guide this nation and there is nothing in the constitution that makes that guidance illegal.

Bull.

It isn't illegal to not hold sacred the sabbath. It isn't illegal to disrespect your parents. It isn't illegal to put other gods before the christian one. It isn't illegal to covet your neighbor's wife...

This country was founded on secular principals. Read up a little bit and stop using other people's talking points.

Why can't I buy bourbon on Sunday?

Bah, you just don't want to look.

SheikBen wrote:Of course, SFCraig, IU'm sure if the two fellers were gay or had peace signs tattoed on their arses, Miss Jan would have had no problem with them whatsoever.

Why should she? Gays and people with peace sign tattos are noted for not being particularly threatening.

Exactly. Everything you've listed is not illegal. If religious beliefs were being shoved down your throat, everything you mentioned would be illegal. All you've done is further prove how wrong you are.

Exactly. Everything you've listed is not illegal. If religious beliefs were being shoved down your throat, everything you mentioned would be illegal. All you've done is further prove how wrong you are.

It means no such thing. It was merely illustrating that this country WAS NOT founded on christian principals.

Has nothing to do with what has happened since then.

Can't you keep up with the rest of the class?

TerryRC wrote:
It means no such thing. It was merely illustrating that this country WAS NOT founded on christian principals.

What's sad is you actually believe that.

Box of rocks lib!!!