10-22-08: Pharmacies across country refusing to sell any contraceptives

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

So only a government is capable of acting in a fascist manner, not an individual?
The business owner wants to deny these products in order to comply with their beliefs and force others to comply with their beliefs. Both fascist. Find another, more appropriate word

fascism was a system whereby the government and business owners acted in concert that grew out of the syndicalist movement in italy (rather than joining the labor unions together in syndicates the populace was joined through nationalism). fascist governments were very interventionalist in the economies. hitler's regime, despite being 'on the right' was very much involved in the operation of the industry of germany.

so, no, an individual cannot act in a fascist manner.

but, as wikipedia cites:

The word ?Fascism? is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ?bully? as a synonym for ?Fascist?. ? George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.[44]

as a "hopelessly vague... pejorative epithet" you could claim that almost anything is fascist.

That's where I was headed, I was just taking the scenic route

I don't take anything in this place (P&N) too seriously because it's all so ridiculous

But if this was your end game why would you try to equate the two?

If you had a problem with the word(which is appropriate anyway) then why didn't you just state that instead of trying to claim I didn't know what the word meant? What do you think a better word to use would be?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
OMG!!! a private business refusing to sell certain things?


So dave(et al.) - should every pharmacy be force to carry and sell every drug/treatment?

We should be allowed to turn away blacks and homosexuals at the door too, my business, my rules.

Uhh we are talking about not carrying products here - not about refusing service to people. Nice try though... you libs can always find an angle to play the race/gay card can't you....

its the same argument

No it isn't. It's not even close. How do you equate not selling products(which is the choice of any business owner) with bigotry? You libs can keep trying to use that same old BS but it doesn't make it any more true.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

So only a government is capable of acting in a fascist manner, not an individual?
The business owner wants to deny these products in order to comply with their beliefs and force others to comply with their beliefs. Both fascist. Find another, more appropriate word

fascism was a system whereby the government and business owners acted in concert that grew out of the syndicalist movement in italy (rather than joining the labor unions together in syndicates the populace was joined through nationalism). fascist governments were very interventionalist in the economies. hitler's regime, despite being 'on the right' was very much involved in the operation of the industry of germany.

so, no, an individual cannot act in a fascist manner.

but, as wikipedia cites:

The word ?Fascism? is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ?bully? as a synonym for ?Fascist?. ? George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.[44]

as a "hopelessly vague... pejorative epithet" you could claim that almost anything is fascist.

That's where I was headed, I was just taking the scenic route

I don't take anything in this place (P&N) too seriously because it's all so ridiculous

But if this was your end game why would you try to equate the two?

If you had a problem with the word(which is appropriate anyway) then why didn't you just state that instead of trying to claim I didn't know what the word meant? What do you think a better word to use would be?

Because it's fun to watch hard-liners tilt at windmills

 

[DealMonkey]

So no one sees the irony in this drug store's actions?

Not selling birth control will likely lead to increased unwanted pregnancies and increased abortions. Are they really doing their own cause a disservice here? Fortunately, it seems like Chantilly, VA has a number of other pharmacies, but what if this particular store was the ONLY one in town? It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots as to what might happen.

Look, I can understand people's objections to abortion, but honestly what is the objection to birth control? I know it's a lot to ask - but is there a rational reason behind this sort of business decision?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So no one sees the irony in this drug store's actions?

Not selling birth control will likely lead to increased unwanted pregnancies and increased abortions. Are they really doing their own cause a disservice here? Fortunately, it seems like Chantilly, VA has a number of other pharmacies, but what if this particular store was the ONLY one in town? It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots as to what might happen.

Look, I can understand people's objections to abortion, but honestly what is the objection to birth control? I know it's a lot to ask - but is there a rational reason behind this sort of business decision?

True. I don't think it solves a thing for them to do this. HOWEVER, dave and crew seem to think the gov't should FORCE these people to sell something they as a business owner don't carry. You may not like the reason WHY they don't carry it, but you should support their choice as a business owner to sell what they wish.

 

[Engineer]

As long as there are other pharmacies in town that do sell birth control, screw them. Let them lose potential customers to someone else. If they were the only pharmacy in town within a distance (say 50 miles or so), then I say there is a problem. Of course, someone would just open one up to say "fuck you" to them and their beliefs.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Wait, who cares? Go to a different pharmacy.

Why are people trying to give money to businesses that dont want it?

That's easy when a different pharmacy is only 2-3 minutes away.. What about when its 45 minutes away, or 2 hours away, or the next state away? where would you draw the line that this is an unreasonable burden to be placed on someone with limited resources?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave.

Your solution is to close the pharmacy down and force the other 99% of patients to make that 45 minute hike?

No, my solution is for every pharmacist to carry everything, within reason. Like skoorb said, if that means making a special order to keep from having to stock costly items with low demand, that's okay with me.

Seems that makes me a Nazi, I guess..

And if they refuse, what is your recourse?

 

[silverpig]

Maybe the power company should stop selling them power.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So no one sees the irony in this drug store's actions?

Not selling birth control will likely lead to increased unwanted pregnancies and increased abortions. Are they really doing their own cause a disservice here? Fortunately, it seems like Chantilly, VA has a number of other pharmacies, but what if this particular store was the ONLY one in town? It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots as to what might happen.

Look, I can understand people's objections to abortion, but honestly what is the objection to birth control? I know it's a lot to ask - but is there a rational reason behind this sort of business decision?

True. I don't think it solves a thing for them to do this. HOWEVER, dave and crew seem to think the gov't should FORCE these people to sell something they as a business owner don't carry. You may not like the reason WHY they don't carry it, but you should support their choice as a business owner to sell what they wish.

I think when you're talking about a normal product - a pen, a type of notebook computer, whatever - that's one thing, but we're talking about medical treatment here. I think when you venture into a type of product or service that has a serious consequence when you are unable to obtain it, then we're really talking about something else entirely.

Someone just brought up the electric company denying this pharmacy power. Or how about the water company denying them water? Seriously, if I owned the power company, I'd be a private business. I should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever I wish. What if I denied this pharmacy because I object to their ideology? Would that be OK? If they don't like it, they can always relocate to the neighboring county assuming they don't adopt the same stance.

Seriously, can you guys not differentiate between being able to buy a notebook computer versus not being able to get the kind of medical treatment you require?

 

[Pens1566]

State licensed health care providers should not be able to decline service based on religious beliefs. That is what we're talking about here.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Wait, who cares? Go to a different pharmacy.

Why are people trying to give money to businesses that dont want it?

That's easy when a different pharmacy is only 2-3 minutes away.. What about when its 45 minutes away, or 2 hours away, or the next state away? where would you draw the line that this is an unreasonable burden to be placed on someone with limited resources?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave.

Your solution is to close the pharmacy down and force the other 99% of patients to make that 45 minute hike?

No, my solution is for every pharmacist to carry everything, within reason. Like skoorb said, if that means making a special order to keep from having to stock costly items with low demand, that's okay with me.

Seems that makes me a Nazi, I guess..

And if they refuse, what is your recourse?

Fines. Lots and lots of fines until the unwanted behavior is corrected.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Unmoosical
*opinion*
How is this not forcing one's religious views on another. These people have the legal right to purchase these medications and are rejected because of the seller's religious views...

Forcing any religious or non religious view on another is wrong in my eyes.
*opinion*

Because a pharmacy is not a PUBLIC institution. It is a PRIVATE institution. Dont like how they do business? Go somewhere else.

Why dont people get that simple idea? In my hometown, they banned smoking in restaurants and bars. I dont smoke... not a big deal to me... OTHER than the fact that it is a PRIVATE establishment. You dont like the smoke? Go somwhere else. You cant work in a smokey environment? Find another job. Let the market sort it out. If non-smoking is so popular, then the market will adjust. Why is that so damned hard?

FWIW, there have been a lot of business go out of business because of the smoking ban... something that the smoking-nazi's said would NEVER happen because more non-smokers would frequent the businesses than smokers who stayed home. another FYI, it was a Republican council and a Democrat mayor that put this in place, so it is a non-partisan arguement.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: winnar111
I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave.

Your solution is to close the pharmacy down and force the other 99% of patients to make that 45 minute hike?

No, my solution is for every pharmacist to carry everything, within reason. Like skoorb said, if that means making a special order to keep from having to stock costly items with low demand, that's okay with me.

Seems that makes me a Nazi, I guess..

And if they refuse, what is your recourse?

Fines. Lots and lots of fines until the unwanted behavior is corrected.

Thus either driving them out of business, or forcing them to drop contraceptions altogether.....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So no one sees the irony in this drug store's actions?

Not selling birth control will likely lead to increased unwanted pregnancies and increased abortions. Are they really doing their own cause a disservice here? Fortunately, it seems like Chantilly, VA has a number of other pharmacies, but what if this particular store was the ONLY one in town? It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots as to what might happen.

Look, I can understand people's objections to abortion, but honestly what is the objection to birth control? I know it's a lot to ask - but is there a rational reason behind this sort of business decision?

True. I don't think it solves a thing for them to do this. HOWEVER, dave and crew seem to think the gov't should FORCE these people to sell something they as a business owner don't carry. You may not like the reason WHY they don't carry it, but you should support their choice as a business owner to sell what they wish.

I think when you're talking about a normal product - a pen, a type of notebook computer, whatever - that's one thing, but we're talking about medical treatment here. I think when you venture into a type of product or service that has a serious consequence when you are unable to obtain it, then we're really talking about something else entirely.

Someone just brought up the electric company denying this pharmacy power. Or how about the water company denying them water? Seriously, if I owned the power company, I'd be a private business. I should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever I wish. What if I denied this pharmacy because I object to their ideology? Would that be OK? If they don't like it, they can always relocate to the neighboring county assuming they don't adopt the same stance.

Seriously, can you guys not differentiate between being able to buy a notebook computer versus not being able to get the kind of medical treatment you require?

Uh... water and electric is totally different. The electric company provides electricity as their product. This sort of whining by Dave et al. is like whining to the electric company that they don't sell electric stoves.(not very good but it's as close as an electric company fits into this discussion). Same with water.

Again, the pharmacy isn't dictating anything, it's merely not offering a product for sale. For your water or electric example to be remotely close to relevant - they would not sell electricity/water to anyone.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Look, I can understand people's objections to abortion, but honestly what is the objection to birth control?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

 

[nakedfrog]

I think the most valid comparison here would be a Christian Scientist pharmacist (if such a thing even exists) refusing to sell antibiotics or insulin.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CPA

dave, why can't you seperate the legal prescription from the choice to sell? they are two different things. wake up, man. stop trying to take rights away from legal business owners.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the legal obligations that accompany the issuance of that license that is required to operate said pharmacy.

The business does not exist if not for the state (govt -- state or fed). This isn't a mom and pop restaurant that they are running. Their entire existence is dependent upon meeting the minimum requirements set forth by the acceptance of that license which allows them to open their doors and can just as easily force them shut.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uh... water and electric is totally different. The electric company provides electricity as their product. This sort of whining by Dave et al. is like whining to the electric company that they don't sell electric stoves.(not very good but it's as close as an electric company fits into this discussion). Same with water.

Again, the pharmacy isn't dictating anything, it's merely not offering a product for sale. For your water or electric example to be remotely close to relevant - they would not sell electricity/water to anyone.

Oh, so regulation on who you can sell to is okay, but not what you can sell?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
I think when you're talking about a normal product - a pen, a type of notebook computer, whatever - that's one thing, but we're talking about medical treatment here. I think when you venture into a type of product or service that has a serious consequence when you are unable to obtain it, then we're really talking about something else entirely.
Just buy some condom, for heaven's sake. Plus, BC can be purchased on-line. You make out like it's some kind of life or death product like insulin etc.

Someone just brought up the electric company denying this pharmacy power. Or how about the water company denying them water? Seriously, if I owned the power company, I'd be a private business. I should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever I wish. What if I denied this pharmacy because I object to their ideology? Would that be OK? If they don't like it, they can always relocate to the neighboring county assuming they don't adopt the same stance.
Elect/water companies are a bad analogy. They have to serve you because they are granted a monopoly. Pharmacies don't have monopolys,.

Seriously, can you guys not differentiate between being able to buy a notebook computer versus not being able to get the kind of medical treatment you require?
It's not "medical treatment" either.

See bolded

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
-snip-
Yes, use the recently approved by the Supreme Court Private emminent Domain laws to declare the non-compliant "Paharmacy's" as blighted and give the property to those that would be in compliance and truly a Pharmacy.

Dave, this ^ surprises me. I didn't think you approved of our government excercising such heavy-handed powers against people.

IMO, because it's a private business they can sell what they want. I don't see how anyone is inconvenienced by this, no doubt there's a Walmart nearby. Walmart's have a pharmacy, and I bet they like the extra business from others' refusal to carry certain products.

People can also order them online.

I don't see the big deal.

People speaking about licenses are mis-informed (and likely unlicensed themselves). A licenses just means you are competent enough to do something; that's all. You can hold any number of licenses and then not even work in the profession.

Edit: Look at licenses this way: it means you are allowed to do something. It doesn't mean you have to do it.

This has nothing to do with "government excercising such heavy-handed powers against people".

If these people want to sell their product they should do so under a different name other than Pharmacy, that is all I am saying.

A Pharmacy fulfills prescriptions that deal with life and death.

If they have an issue with life and/or death as these people do then they do not deserve the moniker of Pharmacy.

The religious are re-defining everything about America and I just happen to be against this re-definition.

 

[DealMonkey]

Okay, bad analogy guys, my bad.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
I think when you're talking about a normal product - a pen, a type of notebook computer, whatever - that's one thing, but we're talking about medical treatment here. I think when you venture into a type of product or service that has a serious consequence when you are unable to obtain it, then we're really talking about something else entirely.
Just buy some condom, for heaven's sake. Plus, BC can be purchased on-line. You make out like it's some kind of life or death product like insulin etc.

Someone just brought up the electric company denying this pharmacy power. Or how about the water company denying them water? Seriously, if I owned the power company, I'd be a private business. I should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever I wish. What if I denied this pharmacy because I object to their ideology? Would that be OK? If they don't like it, they can always relocate to the neighboring county assuming they don't adopt the same stance.
Elect/water companies are a bad analogy. They have to serve you because they are granted a monopoly. Pharmacies don't have monopolys,.

Seriously, can you guys not differentiate between being able to buy a notebook computer versus not being able to get the kind of medical treatment you require?
It's not "medical treatment" either.

See bolded

Fern

1. I guess then the town/city/state/fed is now going to ensure that every household has a computer and internet access on which to place this or a valid credit card to cover the costs?

2. If the person has a problem with the power company not wanting to sell a specific product to them...they can find alternative means of energy. They can put up a windmill or install solar panels. This is essentially the same argument you are making when you claim that the customer should be forced to go somewhere else because the business isn't obligated to provide the service that they are licensed to provide.

3. Actually, birth control medication has many usefull medical purposes.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CPA

dave, why can't you seperate the legal prescription from the choice to sell? they are two different things. wake up, man. stop trying to take rights away from legal business owners.

Probably for the same reason that a lot of you can't seem to separate the legal obligations that accompany the issuance of that license that is required to operate said pharmacy.

The business does not exist if not for the state (govt -- state or fed). This isn't a mom and pop restaurant that they are running. Their entire existence is dependent upon meeting the minimum requirements set forth by the acceptance of that license which allows them to open their doors and can just as easily force them shut.

"Legal obligations" of a license?

You guys are making stuff up.

As I said above (as a license holder myself), licenses exist for the protection of the consumer/client by establishing some level of competence. They allow you as a license holder to do something, they do not require that you do it.

I could better see peoples' argument if pharmacy license were limited based on population etc, but they are not.

Fern

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Uh... water and electric is totally different. The electric company provides electricity as their product. This sort of whining by Dave et al. is like whining to the electric company that they don't sell electric stoves.(not very good but it's as close as an electric company fits into this discussion). Same with water.

Again, the pharmacy isn't dictating anything, it's merely not offering a product for sale. For your water or electric example to be remotely close to relevant - they would not sell electricity/water to anyone.

Oh, so regulation on who you can sell to is okay, but not what you can sell?

eh? where did I say "regulation on who you can sell to is ok" nor did I say regulation was not ok on what you can sell.
This is about forcing you to sell something, not about regulations on what you sell. Like smokes, beer, etc - those are regulated due to our existing laws(not that I necessarily agree with all that). However, just because a store has a liquor license does not mean they have to sell every kind of alcohol.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
I think when you're talking about a normal product - a pen, a type of notebook computer, whatever - that's one thing, but we're talking about medical treatment here. I think when you venture into a type of product or service that has a serious consequence when you are unable to obtain it, then we're really talking about something else entirely.
Just buy some condom, for heaven's sake. Plus, BC can be purchased on-line. You make out like it's some kind of life or death product like insulin etc.

Someone just brought up the electric company denying this pharmacy power. Or how about the water company denying them water? Seriously, if I owned the power company, I'd be a private business. I should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever I wish. What if I denied this pharmacy because I object to their ideology? Would that be OK? If they don't like it, they can always relocate to the neighboring county assuming they don't adopt the same stance.
Elect/water companies are a bad analogy. They have to serve you because they are granted a monopoly. Pharmacies don't have monopolys,.

Seriously, can you guys not differentiate between being able to buy a notebook computer versus not being able to get the kind of medical treatment you require?
It's not "medical treatment" either.

See bolded

Fern

Birth control pills can't be used for medical treatment such as hormon regulation? Tell that to the doctor that prescribes them to my wife for that very reason.