I Had An Interesting Epiphany, At Wal-Mart, Today

[Coffee]

After I paid for my charcoal briquettes, lentils and mozzarella cheese shreds (don't ask) ... I was walking along the front edge of the interior of the store, toward the exit.  And I'm noticing as I'm walking past (inside the store):

- A woman's nail salon.
- An alcohol/liquor sub-store.
- A check-cashing and ATM section.
- Optometrist and eyeglasses store
- A hair salon.

And I'm thinking to myself: This Wal Mart has got to be the most perfectly positioned business to weather a bad economy, if there ever was one, right?

As long as Chinese goods are cheap and keep coming into the country, I guess?

[smurff]

You missed the pharmacy with a Physician's Assistant who takes vitals and (in some states) writes prescriptions.

And the Subway/McDonald's restaurants along the left side.

And the RV's (caravans) parked in the far parking lot.  (Though some cities put a stop to that after numerous complaints.)

From what I recall, Walmart got a banking license a few years ago--primarily to reduce the fees that were deducted when customers paid by credit card, but it comes in handy in other ways.  Maybe in the future they'll be the only ones the Treasury Department allows to sell paper Savings Bonds.

Down south (where I visit relatives from time to time), some people go to Walmart to shop on Thursday morning and are never seen again until the following Tuesday.

[Gumby]

You missed the pharmacy with a Physician's Assistant who takes vitals and (in some states) writes prescriptions

I was told by a pharmaceutical rep that Wal-Mart makes next to nothing on their dirt-cheap prescription sales. The pharmacy is there just to get people into the store.

[cabronjames]

You missed the pharmacy with a Physician's Assistant who takes vitals and (in some states) writes prescriptions

I was told by a pharmaceutical rep that Wal-Mart makes next to nothing on their dirt-cheap prescription sales. The pharmacy is there just to get people into the store.

That is interesting.

A while back, I had a random idea, that it would be great if the ex- "CXO" Walmarter responsible for purchasing (or someone reporting to her), could be hired by the Fed Govt to run purchasing of pharma for Medicare/Medicaid/Veteran Affairs.  Since the US pays the most for pharma, could we at least reduce the bill to whichever the next highest cost country in the OECD is?  Even better, Walmart purchasing exec, if given real authority to do his job, would go in hardball & thoroughly, and match or beat the best practice nation in the OECD.

Even better if such a team & purchasing business process was applied to all/most Fed Gov purchasing in general.

I understand this is fantasy in the 1980-now generation of Reaganite plutocrat politrickians such as Bush 43, Obama, Boehner, etc.  Just saying it would be nice tho.

Another example of an idea that would actually reduce the deficit in way that doesn't crush the majority of the USians, that is Not To Be Mentioned by most of the elite politrickians & elite media - David Gregory & his guests will not be discussing this on Meet The Press.  Bowles & Simpson with their Catfood Commission did not mention any idea like this.

[stone]

For purchasing medicines, the "logical" approach would be to assess the efficacy of new medicines, then give them a score out of ten and pay the pharma company a commensurate up-front payout (from the health insurance industry whether private or governmental) instead of having patents as a means for recouping development costs. The actual manufacturing could then be done by anyone in competition just as with any off-patent generic drugs. That would mean that as soon as a drug was developed it got used by any patient that needed it, pharma companies could immediately re-invest the proceeds of successful development and there would be no marketing costs  trying to get counter-productive over-prescribing of new drugs.

[Storm]

All they need now is a Wal-mart church and a strip club in the same complex and you could live there full time!  Yee-haw!  Walmart just revived the company store atmosphere of the 19th century.  Work for minimum wage, get paid in company store credit!

[Jan Van]

From what I recall, Walmart got a banking license a few years ago--primarily to reduce the fees that were deducted when customers paid by credit card, but it comes in handy in other ways.  Maybe in the future they'll be the only ones the Treasury Department allows to sell paper Savings Bonds.

They tried, but there was too much opposition: Wal-Mart drops bid for banking license amid opposition from big banks, unions, others

Now we don't want to go against them big banks now, do we? They are far too useful!

[Jan Van]

A while back, I had a random idea, that it would be great if the ex- "CXO" Walmarter responsible for purchasing (or someone reporting to her), could be hired by the Fed Govt to run purchasing of pharma for Medicare/Medicaid/Veteran Affairs.  Since the US pays the most for pharma, could we at least reduce the bill to whichever the next highest cost country in the OECD is?  Even better, Walmart purchasing exec, if given real authority to do his job, would go in hardball & thoroughly, and match or beat the best practice nation in the OECD.

If I remember correctly, when they were working on Obamacare there was an upfront agreement with Big Pharma not to do this...

[MediumTex]

A while back, I had a random idea, that it would be great if the ex- "CXO" Walmarter responsible for purchasing (or someone reporting to her), could be hired by the Fed Govt to run purchasing of pharma for Medicare/Medicaid/Veteran Affairs.  Since the US pays the most for pharma, could we at least reduce the bill to whichever the next highest cost country in the OECD is?  Even better, Walmart purchasing exec, if given real authority to do his job, would go in hardball & thoroughly, and match or beat the best practice nation in the OECD.

If I remember correctly, when they were working on Obamacare there was an upfront agreement with Big Pharma not to do this...

Something like that would reduce the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.  We went through the same thing with the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

I'm afraid that some people have the mistaken impression that the government is supposed to get the best possible deal for the taxpayers when administering public programs.  We may have lived in that kind of world at some point in the past, but we are far from that place today.

[craigr]

I feel that the reason these other countries get such lower costs on pharmaceuticals is because the pharma companies are able to make up the gap by their prices in the US. In other words, Canadian drugs are cheap because US consumers are subsidizing them. When that goes away, the supposed cost efficiency of these govt. run systems is going to explode.

[Reub]

The last time that I checked, Wal-Mart has never forced anyone to work for them. They provide many jobs to our economy at a time when we are in desperate need of them.

[smurff]

True, they never forced anyone to work for them, but they have been known to lock people up at night:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/us/wo ... -mart.html

Along with enough additional offenses (okay, "alleged offenses") to keep the courts busy until the 22nd Century.  And not just in the USA.  Too many to list here.  

They are not the only institution that provides jobs to the economy.  The cause of some of that desperation in the economy can be laid at their feet.  A Walmart job may leave employees needy enough to go on Food Stamps, Medicaid, and other forms of taxpayer support for survival:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... l-mar.html

Which is why we can criticize them.

[stone]

Craig R "I feel that the reason these other countries get such lower costs on pharmaceuticals is because the pharma companies are able to make up the gap by their prices in the US."

I totally agree with you. But doesn't that mean that American's are suckers in that regard? It hardly is a reason for continuing doing the same thing? You also set things up in such a way that pharma companies waste immense amounts on marketing in the US and that cost has to be paid for.

[cabronjames]

Craig R "I feel that the reason these other countries get such lower costs on pharmaceuticals is because the pharma companies are able to make up the gap by their prices in the US."

I disagree with yall.  I don't think this gap idea applies.  I think the pharma companies will get whatever they can in each nation, via lobbying.  The marginal cost of producing a pharma tablet must still be below the price the pharma company sells its product "stingiest" OECD nation.  A pharma company's P&L in each nation is still profitable.

I would expect a Pharma lobbyist to counter that "if the US paid the same as other OECD nations, that would hurt US pharma company R&D budgets".  I'm not sure that is clear, either.  I read that US pharma companies spend more on marketing than R&D.  Also, the basic/fundamental R&D which is more vital for R&D innovation is mostly publicly funded & done by universities, National Institute of Health, etc.  Pharma companies take that publicly funded basic R&D, & do applied R&D to develop a specific pharma product.

In any event, if I am wrong, & craigr/stone are correct, wouldn't the proper response to protest in the WTO/UN/the relevant global trade organization, that say "the US is unfairly subsidizing Canada/Japan/etc" & that the latter should raise their prices such that the US could lower its prices, such that the rich OECD nations are paying the same price, or at least closer to the same price?  Since the US is the most powerful nation, it could make this happen if it prioritized it as important.  Or at least make the attempt.

[cabronjames]

Craig R "I feel that the reason these other countries get such lower costs on pharmaceuticals is because the pharma companies are able to make up the gap by their prices in the US."

I disagree with yall.  I don't think this gap idea applies.  I think the pharma companies will get whatever they can in each nation, via lobbying.  The marginal cost of producing a pharma tablet must still be below the price the pharma company sells its product "stingiest" OECD nation.  A pharma company's business in each nation is still profitable.  In other words, I doubt that Merck's business to the Canada market is unprofitable, & is sustained only by Merck's extremely profitable business to the US market.  Merck is probably profitable in every nation, or at least every OECD nation.

I would expect a Pharma lobbyist to counter that "if the US paid the same as other OECD nations, that would hurt US pharma company R&D budgets".  I'm not sure that is clear, either.  I read that US pharma companies spend more on marketing than R&D.  Also, the basic/fundamental R&D which is more vital for R&D innovation is mostly publicly funded & done by universities, National Institute of Health, etc.  Pharma companies take that publicly funded basic R&D, & do applied R&D to develop a specific pharma product.

In any event, if I am wrong, & craigr/stone are correct, wouldn't the proper response to protest in the WTO/UN/the relevant global trade organization, that say "the US is unfairly subsidizing Canada/Japan/etc" & that the latter should raise their prices such that the US could lower its prices, such that the rich OECD nations are paying the same price, or at least closer to the same price?  Since the US is the most powerful nation, it could make this happen if it prioritized it as important.  Or at least make the attempt.