Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:43 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Walgreen Co. Message Board

  • truth_n0t_hype truth_n0t_hype Feb 12, 2005 10:12 PM Flag

    Walgreens Stands Firm

    Walgreens' Michael Polzin said the company has no plans to make an about-face on its mail-order policy. "We are going to continue to fight for what's in the best interest of patients' health care," Polzin told Bloomberg News.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I think you can read that as what is most profitable for us.

      And I see nothing wrong w/that.

    • Jrump - I don't short. Shorting is against my personal investing style. Another nonsense post from you, as usual. I also do not recommend anyone else short WAG. I only say "sell" because that's what I did Friday - I do what I say and say what I do.

    • That's excellent. GM's business is so paltry compared to Wags overall, it's not even going to make a dent.

      GM workers are the real losers here. They are already telling horror stories about their mail order program, now it gets even worse. Merck Medco is running scared and stands to lose BILLIONS if GM officials open their eyes and see how Merck Medco is overcharging them.

      Walgreens Advantage 90 plan can save GM money but Merck Medco doesn't want GM to hear about that. I suspect the GM WILL hear about it anyway and either renegotiate with Merck for much lower prices or contract with Walgreens to cut prescription expenses and still have pharmacist to patient contact.

      • 2 Replies to jramp20032000
      • Jramp, you seem to contradict yourself... You say:

        "Merck Medco is running scared and stands to lose BILLIONS if GM officials open their eyes and see how Merck Medco is overcharging them."

        But yet you say everyone at GM plus other customers could drop dead and WAG would have record profits again and again? Why the double-standard here? Why could GM cost billions to Merck Medco? Are you exaggerating - GM spent one and a half billion in prescriptions last year - not exactly "BILLIONS" as you say in all caps. Why do you think GM's loss of business could cost billions for Medco but the same loss of business to WAG has no effect on their "record profits"?

      • Very well said. As was detailed by sell-this-dog, GM's business was nickels and dimes compared to the Billions in sales Walgreens racks up in RX.

        It's interesting the way Merck made this out to be a cost saving measure when nothing could be further from the truth. It's Merck looking out for Merck. Period. They could care less about GM's desire to save money. They just want the cash for the overpriced prescription service to keep flowing in from GM.

        Walgreen is a threat to Merck Medco. Merck Medco is trying to organize a smear campaign against Wags. Merck doesn't want anything to interfere with their lucrative prescription benefit management service with GM. After all, they have to recoup the Vioxx money somewhere.

 
WAG
70.89+0.73(+1.04%)Jul 30 4:02 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.