Thursday, June 23, 2011

Cheap Prescriptions

I should mention what a boon for the poor the $4 prescriptions at Walmart and Target are. We get a fair number of people who do not qualify for benefits but needs psych meds. These stores meet a real need.

Yes, the pharmaceutical companies do a nice job on patient assistance, but it often takes a month or more to get the drugs in place.

13 comments:

Roy Lofquist said...

The $4 prescriptions are loss leaders - they get people into the store.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Oh, absolutely. But they work for my people.

Roy Lofquist said...

AVI,

Works for me, too. If you want to lower costs and improve quality cast them into that Darwinian marketplace.

Roy

Anonymous said...

AVI,

I am extremely disappointed in you for not even considering the reality that the family court system operates outside of the US constitution, and results in vastly more male suicides than female.

Even Dr. Helen writes about this daily. You would do well to rad up on how misandry has pervaded the US judicial system.

Barb the Evil Genius said...

Pharmaceutical companies do a nice job on patient assistance when the drug already comes in a generic. On the other hand, during a dark time when we had $0 income, one company, whose drug costs about $300 a month, refused to help with medication because we had made too much money the year before! So I had to beg and scrounge for several months between my GP and my psychiatrist to get what I needed.

Jonathan said...

Anonymous, way to keep it on topic.

Jonathan said...

Also, how does family court "result" in male or female suicides?

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Anon is responding to my being quoted on Instapundit, and just took the top post, because there isn't another. It's not on topic, but s/he had no other way.

Anonymous, the main point is that the general case of family court has little to do with Thomas Ball. Extra-constitutional? So is traffic court.

Analogy. Sometimes I have someone at work who offends often in a particular area, or similarly, in raising my children there were times when a general problem started to arise, which I felt I needed to nip in the bud at the next opportunity. Yet when you think like that, you leap to conclusions, and blame a coworker/your child for some specific act which turns out not to be an offense you were looking for. They might even turn out to be innocent. It doesn't pay to be set on a hair-trigger that everything that goes wrong in an area is an example of the general problem you're upset about.

Thus with Ball. Family courts may in some places or even most places treat men unfairly. That does not prove a damn thing about Ball's case, nor even give us a clue. Each case on its own merits, because this is America.

Losing custody of one's children is a common stressor I encounter when dealing with suicidal people, male and female. They all say they were treated unfairly. Sometimes that may be so. Sometimes, it very clearly isn't, as we get to know the patient and discover that they should have absolutely no unsupervised contact with their children, however much they complain.

Why on earth would you take someone at face value that they have been cheated by the courts just because they say so? Prisons are full of guys who claim to be innocent. That tells us nothing, pro or con. Only the evidence tells us. Thomas Ball's evidence, from his own words, not from what others said about him, convince me he completed evaded taking any responsibility for anything that happened, always blaming others. Because of his statements, I don't trust him.

Anonymous said...

Jonathan,

Also, how does family court "result" in male or female suicides?

By putting men in near-slavery and taking their children away from them on a 'no-fault' basis.

Read Dr. Helen to educate yourself on extreme anti-male bias in the judicial system.

Anonymous said...

AVI,

Extra-constitutional? So is traffic court.

Yeah, paying a ticket is on par with the destruction of families and placement of men into near-slavery.

Weak, weak point on your part.

Plus, you dodged the fact that Dr. Helen disagrees with you, and knows more about this than you do.

It is interesting that a conservative like you is doing the left's handiwork for them.

Donna B. said...

long comment wouldn't post...

The essence of it was that anonymous is wrong in invoking Dr. Helen and her bitter commenters as is AVI in dismissing Thomas Ball's characterization of Family Court.

The truth is elsewhere.

Jonathan said...

Welcome back, Anon!

I remember when all our trolls were Copithorne. How I miss those days.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I am not certain Dr. Helen knows more about this than I do. Certainly we have seen the unfairness of family court up-close-and personal in our family, and I encounter many people who have been through family court. Moreover, I know something about this agency, and this family court, though not a lot about the latter. I know many of the statistics nationally.

I have dodged nothing, anon. When you use terms like "near-slavery," as an example, you brand yourself as one who cannot enter a discussion. Folks such as yourself are sometimes good sources of information, and worth listening to, but there is no point discussing thins with them. I didn't say traffic court was of equal gravity with family court. I merely pointed out that the claim of extra-constitutionality is not especially powerful.

To wave the bloody shirt of the suicide rate as evidence of being correct is to reason like a Palestinian: we have suffered, therefore we must be right. Absurd. He feels terrible. Not everything is his fault. That's not enough, not by a long shot.

Ball is a specific case. I have no objection to any specific case being used as an example of anti-male bias in family courts, but I do not grant it automatically just because the male came out unhappy with the result. I don't know the parties involved. His ex-wife may be wonderful or terrible. Thomas may have been a prince of a guy in other settings. But I read what he wrote, combined with the bare facts of the case, and he is not convincing.

I am intrigued that Donna B thinks I am reading this case wrongly, however, and would like to know more. Perhaps she is not at liberty to say what she knows.