hugo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
fullauto said:How so... Like the republicans in what sense?
serious questions... I'm not just busting your balls
In much of the world liberal retains it's classical meaning.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
fullauto said:How so... Like the republicans in what sense?
serious questions... I'm not just busting your balls
hugo said:In much of the world liberal retains it's classical meaning.
wardmd said:Agreed. That's the LAW...
The point of disagreement, though, is that the LAW is STUPID, and a Governmental INTRUSION into the operation of a PRIVATE business (pharmacy, doctor's office, restaurant, ANYTHING)...
It's NOT a question of Wal-Mart not wanting to have the drug sitting on the shelf; they, simply, do not believe they should be FORCED to sell the damn thing (whatever the "damn thing" is)... In THIS case, it happens to be the "morning after" pill, but that is NOT the point...
My point IS valid (just because it is beyond your ability to comprehend does not make it any less valid)...
The argument, here, is GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION INTO THE OPERATION OF A PRIVATE BUSINESS (whatever that business is)...
Geez!
Personally, I'd suggest that Wal-Mart CLOSE all of its pharmacies in Massachusetts. Two can play at that game...
Nobody's whining here...Cogito Ergo Sum said:Nobody is forcing Wal-Mart to keep their pharmacies open. They can close them and surrender their pharmacy licenses at any time; it's not a problem.
Now...
Ultra Christian doctor dude is working in the ER at the local hospital. He's the only attending physician on the unit for the time being.
In rolls ambulance with critical gunshot patient - a skinhead full of demonic tattoos including the huge image of Jesus ****ing the virgin Mary in the Ass while slitting her throat with a dagger complete with crimson blood squirting, he has dozens of piercings, and the phrase "**** YOU" tattooed across his hands. On his arm, is a complex tattoo of his molesting an obvious child.
Now, Dr. Jesus Lover...is he able to decide not to treat the patient? In his point of view, it would be against his religion to associate with such blasphemy and he resents being FORCED to treat this patient.
Is he right?
No. Not in the least bit. When you become a licensed physician, (just like becoming a licensed pharmacy), you obligate yourself to render medical assistance in an emergency situation and this is especially so for an ER Doctor. You're absolutely correct in IT'S THE LAW, AND A DAMN GOOD ONE TOO!
If he did not wish to be so obligated, turn in your medical degree and be a florist.
Contrary to Hugo's and your ludicrous whining on this topic, there are indeed occasions when government intrusion is A DAMN GOOD THING. Obviously others thought so, because they enacted legislation AUTHORIZING it.
Stop whining and start politicking. You have the legal means to change things here in this country but good luck convincing the majority of Americans that regulating pharmacies and medical personnel is a bad thing.
Cogito Ergo Sum said:I can't wait to see the world under wardmd and hugo... Please NO!!!
Need your prescription filled? No problem; well...kind of...
Just go to your local pharmacy, present your prescription, find out the local pharmacist or the corporation they work for, doesn't believe in dispensing your legally prescribed antibiotics because the same company also manufactures drugs to aid in healing sex reassignment surgeries, or hormone replacement, or birth control, or the Plan B pill, or whatever little trivial thing it is that gets their respective panties in a ****ing wad! Hell, they may just not even like you and shouldn't have to sell medicine to you because your black or white, or Chinese or Jewish or an immigrant or poor or or or ...
So you have to leave and go someplace else, always to be subjected to some arbitrary and religious/bullshit scrutiny in order to obtain MEDICINE.
hugo & wardmd - HAVE YOU LOST YOUR ****ING MINDS?!?!?!?
Obviously...
Three bodies of evidence indicate that the costs of FDA requirements exceed the benefits. In other words, three bodies of evidence suggest that the FDA kills and harms, on net. First, we compare pre-1962 drug approval times and rates of drug introduction with post-1962 approval times and rates of introduction. Second, we compare drug availability and safety in the United States with the same in other countries. Third, we compare the relatively unregulated market of off-label drug uses in the United States with the on-label market. In the final section, before turning to reform options, we also discuss the evidence showing that the costs of FDA advertising restrictions exceed the benefits.
Comparison with Other Countries
Deaths owing to drug lag have been numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Wardell (1978a) estimated that practolol, a drug in the beta-blocking family, could save ten thousand lives a year if allowed in the United States. Although the FDA allowed a first beta-blocker, propranolol, in 1968, three years after that drug had been available in Europe, it waited until 1978 to allow the use of propranolol for the treatment of hypertension and angina pectoris, its most important indications. Despite clinical evidence as early as 1974, only in 1981 did the FDA allow a second beta-blocker, timolo, for prevention of a second heart attack. The agency's withholding of beta-blockers was alone responsible for probably tens of thousands of deaths (on this general issue see Gieringer 1985; Kazman 1990).
TheJenn88 said:Afterall, a store exists to serve its customers.
First they were socialists. They could not win with that label. They stole an honorable word, liberal, and turned it into a synonym for socialist. People figured it out. Now they are calling themselves progressives. Manure, by any name, still smells like ****.fullauto said:ahhh... so once again we change the meaning of something to suit our needs...
interesting
hugo said:Wrong, a store exists to increase the wealth of it's owners.
phreakwars said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/ts_nm/life_contraception_walmart_dc
What the hell is this ?? Forced abortions ?? I am not so sure you can call the morning after pill a contraceptive... but I really believe these pills should NOT be sold at Wal-Mart
TheJenn88 said:You're starting to sound like Tori, with such a decisive statement. "Wrong.... wrong.....wrong."
Might you concede to it being a matter of opinion?
I base my opinion on the fact that the more customers are happy, the more likely business is going to boom. So you could argue it both ways, I guess. Just depends which way you want to look at it from.
Lethalfind said:I think Wal-Mart is lying when they are citing low demand, Wal-Mart is based in the Bible Belt. There are alot of things Wal-Mart won't sell for "religious reasons", have you browsed through their music collection for instance?
TheJenn88 said:In my personal opinion, owning a branch of a massive corporation like wal-mart, you are sort of surrendering any personal morals that you may have. You are there to cater to the public, despite how you, or your employees may personally feel.
ImWithStupid said:Wal-Mart's morals end when there are dollars to be had.
TheJenn88 said:You're starting to sound like Tori, with such a decisive statement. "Wrong.... wrong.....wrong."
Might you concede to it being a matter of opinion?
I base my opinion on the fact that the more customers are happy, the more likely business is going to boom. So you could argue it both ways, I guess. Just depends which way you want to look at it from.
hugo said:EXACTLY, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING...MAXIMIZING SHAREHOLDER WEALTH. They make a calculated decision that not filling certain prescriptions will gain them more sales from the pro-life fanatics than they will lose from the I want to kill my baby and you got to help me fanatics.