Walmart greatest company in history?

[bugman]

Wal-Mart Unveils New Drug Program
This article was published on Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:20 PM CDT in News
By Anita French
The Morning News

* Email this story
* Print this story
* Comment on this story

Wal-Mart is applying its famous price rollback strategy to health care by announcing it will make nearly 300 generic drugs available to customers and employees for only $4 per prescription.

Wal-Mart officials announced the news Thursday at a live conference in Tampa, Fla., attended by Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

Some analysts said it was not just altruism but a smart business move on Wal-Mart's part, while union groups criticized the new drug program as a cosmetic fix.

The world's largest retailer said it is launching its new drug program today to customers and employees at 65 Wal-Mart, Neighborhood Market and Sam's Club pharmacies in the Tampa Bay area and will expand it to the entire state by January.

The company said it hopes to extend the program to as many states as possible next year.

"Each day in our pharmacies we see customers struggle with the cost of prescription drugs," said Wal-Mart President and CEO Lee Scott in a news release. "By cutting the cost of many generics to $4, we are helping to ensure that our customers and associates get the medicine they need at a price they can afford."
*

The $4 pricing will be available to all pharmacy customers with a 30-day prescription from a doctor that can be filled with a covered generic medicine. The program also will be available to the uninsured, Wal-Mart said.

A list of the 291 generic drugs available for $4 will be posted at walmartfacts.com, said Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark. Two of the ones cited by Bill Simon, executive vice president with Wal-Mart, were Lisinopril for high blood pressure and Metformin for diabetes.

"Lisinopril at $4 is a 67 percent savings from the previous average generic price. Metformin for $4 represents a nearly 50 percent savings from the cost of the brand name version of the drug. What we're doing today will mean real savings on prescriptions," Simon said during a teleconference.

Those customers who are required by an insurance company to pay a higher co-pay for drugs will still only be charged $4, he said.

Simon said 84 percent of American families already shop at Wal-Mart every year, so the company's aim in lowering prescription costs is not to bring more people into its stores but provide affordable drugs.

But retail analyst Patricia Edwards, of Wentworth, Hauser and Violich in Seattle, said Wal-Mart's move was still a "brilliant business strategy."

"For one thing, it increases store traffic. Most people fill all of their prescriptions at one place, so Wal-Mart not only gets generic drug (prescriptions) but also branded. At $4, they're probably breaking even, but they still have their regular margins on branded prescriptions. And what do you do while waiting for your prescription to be filled? You shop and buy things at higher margins," she said.

Edwards said Wal-Mart's lowering drug costs will also help it in those urban areas where they are facing opposition to opening stores. Some of that opposition has come from Democrats, but at least one, Nelson, praised the company for its lowering drug costs.

"Fifty bucks for a year's supply of prescription drugs is a pretty darn good deal for consumers," he said in the news release. "Because Wal-Mart has the ability to shape the market, maybe other retailers will follow suit."

In fact, retailers will have to follow Wal-Mart's lead, Edwards said, if they want to compete.

"The big margins have been on generics, and that's why Wal-Mart is doing this. If you're Walgreens, you can't let this go unanswered," she said.

Richard Hastings, senior retail analyst with Bernard Sands in New York, called Wal-Mart's move a "bold leap" and said it is bound to have an impact on the U.S. economy.

"Their ability to leverage their big volume purchasing capability with vendors is reflected in lower-than-market unit costs which turn into lower prices for their shoppers, and this is no exception to that rule. From an earnings perspective, this should be a neutral event. It could improve customer loyalty and foot traffic trends over the long term. The key is to get them in, and keep them shopping in other departments. We'll wait and see if this works, but it will take up to two years to know if this has helped with cross-departmental traffic and conversion," he said.

Two of Wal-Mart's most vocal critics were unimpressed with the company's new drug program. Paul Blank of Wake-Up Wal-Mart in Washington said in an e-mail statement that, while lowering prescription drug costs is good news, "Wal-Mart cruelly ignores the fact that it fails to provide company health care to over half of its employees, which leaves 46 percent of its workers' children uninsured or on public health care."

Wal-Mart Watch spokesman Andrew Grossman dismissed the company's action as a "marketing spin," and said Wal-Mart should overhaul its own health care plan for employees.

[habbywall]

This doesn't make them good.
They are still bad.

[yoopers]

Originally Posted by habbywall

This doesn't make them good.
They are still bad.

Have I mentioned their chicken tenders?

[habbywall]

Originally Posted by yoopers

Have I mentioned their chicken tenders?

Have I mentioned there couple thousand below poverty line full time employment rates. I don't care who you are, I don't think good chicken tenders make up for outsourcing tons of jobs and not letting people like a decent life.

[Stryder]

I don't think pharmisuiticals makes wal-mart great, but I voted great anyway just to offset all the liberals who hate capitalism.

Originally Posted by habbywall

Have I mentioned there couple thousand below poverty line full time employment rates. I don't care who you are, I don't think good chicken tenders make up for outsourcing tons of jobs and not letting people like a decent life.

Here's an idea... DON'T WORK THERE!

[vuniw]

walmart is the best

[ThisGuyIKnow]

Originally Posted by Stryder

Here's an idea... DON'T WORK THERE!

If only it were that simple.

[Spudman]

Why has everyone voted yes in the poll? Maybe wally world really is the greatest!


(I voted yes too.... )

[vuniw]

walmart is great for customers, not for employees

[James_Potter]

Originally Posted by Stryder

Here's an idea... DON'T WORK THERE!

Try telling that to those who work in sweatshops getting paid less than minimum wage and can't get a better job.

[jsm]

We're the greatest. We're taking over!

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by vuniw

walmart is great for customers, not for employees

Bugman has already explained in other threads why Wal-Mart is also bad for the towns they come to, hence bad for the customers.

Originally Posted by Stryder

I don't think pharmisuiticals makes wal-mart great, but I voted great anyway just to offset all the liberals who hate capitalism.

Liberals love capitolism, which is why progressives and radicals don't like liberals. Of course, it's just too many misinformed people like you that put Bush in office, even after he put the USA and the world in harms way by invading Iraq--a move even conservatives agree made the world more dangerous and increased threat to the USA.

Headlines: Terrorists praise Bush for creating breeding ground for terrorism in Iraq.

[yoopers]

Originally Posted by habbywall

Have I mentioned there couple thousand below poverty line full time employment rates. I don't care who you are, I don't think good chicken tenders make up for outsourcing tons of jobs and not letting people like a decent life.

Oh I disagree. When eating a chicken tender, all other worries just melt away.

[rare forum rant]Not letting people have a decent life? Since when does Wal-Mart owe anyone anything? They are in business for one reason only, to make money. If you don't like the way they do business, start your own company and do it differently.

As has hopefully been stated over in the 'other' thread, no one is owed a job. It is a privilege to be employed. Life is tough! If you would like a better job than working at Wal-Mart, quit whining, quit being lazy and make it happen. On the other hand, if you want to make a particular type of bed, be prepared to sleep in it. I have always been an 'at will' employee. That simply means that my company can dispose of me anytime it likes if its good for the company...and that has happened three times now in the last four years. The responsibility for working and the ability to work a particular type of job is up to only one person. Take a wild guess who that is. [/rare forum rant]

[habbywall]

Originally Posted by yoopers

Oh I disagree. When eating a chicken tender, all other worries just melt away.

[rare forum rant]Not letting people have a decent life? Since when does Wal-Mart owe anyone anything? They are in business for one reason only, to make money. If you don't like the way they do business, start your own company and do it differently.

As has hopefully been stated over in the 'other' thread, no one is owed a job. It is a privilege to be employed. Life is tough! If you would like a better job than working at Wal-Mart, quit whining, quit being lazy and make it happen. On the other hand, if you want to make a particular type of bed, be prepared to sleep in it. I have always been an 'at will' employee. That simply means that my company can dispose of me anytime it likes if its good for the company...and that has happened three times now in the last four years. The responsibility for working and the ability to work a particular type of job is up to only one person. Take a wild guess who that is. [/rare forum rant]

So you don't think it is their job to make sure that their employees are well enough payed to live? Someone should call the BBB.

[yoopers]

Originally Posted by habbywall

So you don't think it is their job to make sure that their employees are well enough payed to live? Someone should call the BBB.

Nope! If you don't agree with their offer of employment, don't accept it. They don't owe you anything. Deciding on what level is "well enough payed to live" is up to Congress, not Wal-Mart. Maybe you should redirect your arrows.