I disagree again. If people did not want Walmart around they would never shop there. Its over, Walmart is no more. But Walmart offers lower prices so people stay going there, it was decided by the market.
If Walmart does not wish to sale something they should not be forced to, whether its the anti rejection drugs my wife takes, to the pill we are discussing now. If the government is so concerned about it, open up there own pharmacies to compete with those that do not sale what they want them too. Same with anything else in the business world, you do not like it, shop somewhere else.
McDonalds does not sale healthy food those SOB’s I propose making them sale fat free fries, soy burgers and soy ice cream. Since it is the only fast food place in my lil’ town they should have too!
A pharmacy is a matter of public health, and there is a wide precendent for companies involved in these things to be subject to additional regulations.
My electric company cannot decide that they do not want to serve my block anymore. I believe phone companies must allow 911 access from all phones and must offer a basic/low cost plan. The private companies that sell food in public schools have to follow certain nutrituional guidelines. Private schools must provide certain cirriculums. Private prisons must house the prisoners that the state sends over.
When it’s a matter of public health or public good, the government can, does and should step in.
Make every restaraunt sale health food then, for public health. Make every gym free, for public health and well being. Make every car on the road illegal without a governor maxing out at 10mph, for public health. Open up all amusement parks for free, for the public good. Be sure to make all garages free so my vehicle stays road safe, you know for the public. Better give everyone a free cell phone, ya know in case there is en emergency while we are at it, all cars better have OnStar in case of trouble, for public good. While we are on it, we better not allow stores to sale cigarettes, fatty foods, high heels, steps, fireplaces, lighters, matches, furnaces, anything that contains a poison, etc. You know for the public health.
Yeah I am making it more then it is, but thats because you all are making it less then it is.
If you want a license to sell booze, you gotta conform with the regs. You wanna sell tobacco, you gotta conform to the regs. You wanna sell prescription drugs, you gotta conform to the regs. You wanna run a company with more than X number of employees, you gotta conform to the regs.
But regs that only apply to Wal-Mart? Scary. Perhaps the government should just take over Wal-Mart and make it a state-run utility.
No I am advocating a government that does not replace personal responsibilty, ownership of a business and/or property. I see nothing but bad coming of this, when the government can decide to force a private enterprise to sale something. Be sweet though if I made something if the government decided it was “good” for the public health and force private companies to sale my stuff.
Not to go off topic totally, but it is the same as a slip on a sidewalk, you fall, you sue. Sure that crack could of been fixed by the property owner, but damn it you where walking and should of looked down. Sure cigarettes kill, I know it, I knew it when I was a smoker, so get cancer, sue. It is called personal responsibilty I do not need a watchdog to watch out for it for me, by forcing cigarettes off the monetary scales.
Nor do I need a government entity telling me what I have to sale. If I open a computer store, selling only Window based machines, the government can decide Linux based are safer for the public and force me to sale them? Same thing. Walmart is a private company, if the people would like them to have something they do not carry in stock, don’t shop there.
People say about the slippery slope all the time, I do not think people realize we are down the other side already, never to return as it is now just the way it is. Some people grow up but never want to leave daycare, I do.
Wal-Mart chose to go into the pharmacy business, which is already highly regulated by state and federal authorities, requires oversight of dispensing practices, adherence to community standards, and is already full of mandates to supply unprofitable (but vital) prescription medications for the public good.
Now I don’t favor targeting Wal-Mart specifically for this issue, but neither do I favor excusing them from serving this aspect of the common welfare. Public health policy has consistently over-ridden individual rights in this country since the late 1700s, when government officials quarantined sailors with contagious diseases.
If you want a piece of the lucrative pharmacy trade, you must knowingly put yourself into a business with a very very high degree of regulation.
The private companies that sell food in public schools are paid by the state, in one form or another. Same for private prisons. Yes, it’s a matter of public health or public good, but it’s just as much a matter of the consumer calling the shots. “If you want my money you’ll do things my way.”
Private schools must provide certain curricula if they want to be accredited by the state or whatever governing body is appropriate. That’s actually a better analogy than the other two.
How about we just make this easy and require doctors who prescribe this medicine to dispense it? That way we don’t have to worry about time sensitivity or anybody’s rights of conscience. Yes, I know that makes an exception for this one thing, but that’s happening anyway. And doctors dispense medicine all the time. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been sent home with samples, including a whole first month’s supply of the birth control pills I take now.
Your experience is not universal. More and more doctors are giving up dispensing samples, because of increasingly stringent regulations on keeping and dispensing them. And in-house dispensaries are subject to even more regulations than that. To require physicians to also dispense prescription medications adds another level of bureaucracy, regulation, fees and oversite, and would represent a loss in revenue for the vast majority of physicians who would undertake this.
If it went into GD because of women’s rights and so forth, I mgiht allow it, as that was the intention of my OP. It wa NOT to discuss what the government can and can’t do. If people want to start a thread discussing that, they are more than welcome to.
Fact: Wal-mart is never a monopoly. It may be, in some cases, the only store within X number of miles but that does not constitute a monopoly. Any other retailer is free to open next door and compete.
Agreed, and if this were happening you’d have a point. In this case it has nothing to do with the pharmacist or his concerns. It’s a Wal-mart corporate policy. Wal-mart has every right to determine what they will or will not sell in any department. IMPORTANT CAVEAT: If this drug has been determined to be vital to the public health and is listed for that reason in state or federal regulations as a “must carry” drug for all pharmacies, then by operating a pharmacy you agree to abide by those regulations. Public health does trump personal freedom. Whether RU-486 is, or should be, a public health drug is a whole 'nuther debate.
How very disingenious! The Constitution of the United States sets forth the powers of government. If a power not is expressly given the government in the Contitution, then the government does not have that power. Perhaps you can show me where the Constitution grants the power for government to control the merchandise offered by private business. Found it yet? Didn’t think so.
It’s not, if the system of government is socialism, communism, or dictatorship. Though we may be heading that way, the US didn’t start there ain’t there yet.
[quote=Diogenes the Cynic]
What Constitutional right is being violated by this kind of law?
[quote]
Off the top of my head I’d say the right to privacy, the right to liberty, and the first amendment right to freedom of expression.
While I answered that question in my caveat above, my question to you is “What does that have to do with RU-486?”
But there is always the option for a market “B” to open and sell all those things that market “A” doesn’t. Put your money where your mouth is and open or invest in a business that will do just that. Be part of the “market myth” (adressed below).
As long as it doesn’t affect those things you think are right, appparently.
I think I can speak for Abby here and say “Wrong!”.
This post is getting very long, so the short answers are:
No, market forces are not a “myth”
Yes, the market exists. Whether the people or the government control it, it exists.
Sometimes capitalism is “preditory and cannibalistic”. So is nature. It works as a controlling factor in both areas.
Yes, people always have options. They may not have easy options, but they always have some options.
It seems to me (though I could be wrong) that there is some confusion as to what MA is requiring Walmart pharmacies (and all pharmacies in MA) to dispense.
They are requiring all pharmacies to dispense Plan B, a.k.a the “morning after pill” - which is levonorgestrel - a synthetic progestogen.
Plan B does not contain mifepristone.
RU-486 contains mifeprestone (an abortifacient / antiprogestin) and is not what the ruling of the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy was about.
The government doesn’t allow me to fill folks’ prescriptions, even if I have a ready & available source for the prescribed substances.
All in all, this is a good thing. (IMHO. You may dissent). While I may not approve of everything they do, the general idea of a Food and Drug Administration to license and oversee businesses that hand folks drugs as described on Rx pads by their physicians meshes very well with my idea of what a government ought to be doing.
So from a strictly administrative / responsibility-tree vantage point, yes, the government has the authority to say that Wal-Mart must dispense the morning-after pill if a physical prescribes it. Similarly, from the same vantage point, the government has the authority to tell every pharmacy in the land that they may not dispense that pill, nor any form of abortifacient, nor any contraceptive of any form or fashion.
Meanwhile, shifting from whether they should have that authority to whether it is a morally righteous and medically defensible decision for them to reach, my opinion is that yes, it is good that they are requiring Wal-Mart to carry and provide that medication; that, furthermore, the morning-after pill should be available on an over-the-counter basis without prescription, as recommended but not acted upon awhile back; and that, as a broad general rule, anything that increases people’s control over their own fertility and put that decision in their hands and free them from the various limitations that their bodies and its organs may have, is a good and righteous thing.
Thank you for clarifying this (again). Progestins are found in regular old oral, injectable, and implantable contraceptives. Taking Plan B is just like taking a big dose of a progestin-only (NB: no estrogens) oral contraceptive.
(RU-486/mifepristone stops the hormones that maintain the uterine lining, causing the lining to release and, essentially, the menstrual period to start.)
