This particular medicine was supposed to be free. My mother had gone through the chore of phoning up the company--"Pfizer" as it so happens--to arrange or register or whatever for the free week's supply. Apparently, this was no simple matter. At many points, my mother told me, she had to say "no" to questions which would have cost her money if she had answered "yes".
Now, let's stop right there.
Things are better in SLOVAKIA. I lived in Slovakia for more than ten years, and while I rarely used the medical services there, I did purchase medicines when I was sick. And I never had to go through such an annoying procedure as that phone call my mother made. And medicines in Slovakia are much cheaper than they are here....This bullshit is just not necessary. I don't know why people put up with it.
So, even when a company like Pfizer gives you a "free" sample, they make you work for it, and make it easy for it to cost you. That is an outrageous level of greed and disrespect.
When I got to the pharmacy counter, I was confronted by a television screen with a picture of me. And there was a sign claiming that at Walgreens I was safe and got cheap meds.
bullshit
Don't tell me that I am on camera to make my life safer. I am on camera to be sure that whoever really profits from Walgreen's operations has the MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PROFIT.
Am I really supposed to feel safe because I am on camera when I am getting a medicine for my mother. And are they going to erase the film????
It seems to me that what we have here is a violation of my right to privacy.
[I have written elsewhere, I believe, about the unpleasantness I encountered when I dared to enter KMart with my backpack--because I don't own a car, and because I have to carry the things I buy....but that experience clearly illustrated the fact that the presumption of innocence had be revoked in that particular location...]
That's what happens when you have "for profit" medicine, for profit drug companies.
Actually, the whole business is even more insulting.
Every transaction at the drug store involves a little ritual: What is the address of the person who's getting the prescription? OR, the question: What is their birthdate?
WHY SO MUCH SUSPICION?
what are they afraid of?
This seems to be social control, at a very mundane level.
I did comment on this obnoxious system to the person behind the counter.
Nonetheless, I was faced with another question prior to getting the med's.
Have you got any ID?
Well, the medicine wasn't for me, but my mother; and I certainly don't have her ID.
But understand well, I am a citizen of the United States. I was born here. And I don't expect to be asked to prove my identity when I am at home. I accept it as a fact if I live outside of my home country, but at home??????
As it turns out, I don't have a driver's license. (I read somewhere that people are dying every year form global warming; and I don't want that on my conscience.)
by special dispensation from the local manager, I was allowed to get my mother's medicine by showing them my cash card.....
This is an example of social control. NO, people in the USA are not free. But no one seems to notice.
I will stop before I say something even more indiscrete.
By the way: What was it like in SLOVAKIA when I needed medicine? DId I have to tell them my birthdate or address? No, nothing like that. I had a plastic card that indicated I was registered in the health care system. I only had to produce it. NO suspicion. Hmmmm, I wonder why? Why are things better in EASTERN EUROPE? (Maybe it's better in CUBA too?)
Recommended:
On Al Jazeera English, "People and Power", "Drug Money":
8/10/2010
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/08/2010811104338837849.html
An After-Thought
Suppose we were to take seriously Walgreen's claim that in-store monitoring with cameras improves safety. Then, we would have to ask for evidence: Is there any evidence that stores with cameras have less violent crime? I suppose that "safety" does not merely mean "less theft". My safety as a customer is damaged when I am faced with the threat of bodily injury.
I am not safer if Walgreens catches a shoplifter.
And there are precedents here. The City of London installed an extremely expensive camera system a few years ago. Last year there was a story (I've forgotten where I read it) about the fact that this expensive camera system had not made a big difference in criminal behavior. The City's solution: have more people monitor the cameras. (In other words: less privacy and less freedom for the wider public.) In other words, the initial expensive expenditure wasn't enough; they were going to spend more money to continue a failed policy.
Of course, the real issue is: what gives Walgreens the right to do what they do? I am inclined to accept the following answer: capitalist firms are "private tyrannies". In other words, morally speaking they have no right whatsoever to do what they do; but politically speaking, they do it because they can--because they have the power. And by borrowing Chomsky's phrase I do not think I am exaggerating one bit.
In the case of Walgreens, the case would be this: have they ever presented any evidence whatsoever for their claim that cameras increase customer safety? If they have never even attempted to make a case for that claim, then my diagnosis is supported.
That's what happens when you have "for profit" medicine, for profit drug companies.
Actually, the whole business is even more insulting.
Every transaction at the drug store involves a little ritual: What is the address of the person who's getting the prescription? OR, the question: What is their birthdate?
WHY SO MUCH SUSPICION?
what are they afraid of?
This seems to be social control, at a very mundane level.
I did comment on this obnoxious system to the person behind the counter.
Nonetheless, I was faced with another question prior to getting the med's.
Have you got any ID?
Well, the medicine wasn't for me, but my mother; and I certainly don't have her ID.
But understand well, I am a citizen of the United States. I was born here. And I don't expect to be asked to prove my identity when I am at home. I accept it as a fact if I live outside of my home country, but at home??????
As it turns out, I don't have a driver's license. (I read somewhere that people are dying every year form global warming; and I don't want that on my conscience.)
by special dispensation from the local manager, I was allowed to get my mother's medicine by showing them my cash card.....
This is an example of social control. NO, people in the USA are not free. But no one seems to notice.
I will stop before I say something even more indiscrete.
By the way: What was it like in SLOVAKIA when I needed medicine? DId I have to tell them my birthdate or address? No, nothing like that. I had a plastic card that indicated I was registered in the health care system. I only had to produce it. NO suspicion. Hmmmm, I wonder why? Why are things better in EASTERN EUROPE? (Maybe it's better in CUBA too?)
Recommended:
On Al Jazeera English, "People and Power", "Drug Money":
8/10/2010
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/peopleandpower/2010/08/2010811104338837849.html
An After-Thought
Suppose we were to take seriously Walgreen's claim that in-store monitoring with cameras improves safety. Then, we would have to ask for evidence: Is there any evidence that stores with cameras have less violent crime? I suppose that "safety" does not merely mean "less theft". My safety as a customer is damaged when I am faced with the threat of bodily injury.
I am not safer if Walgreens catches a shoplifter.
And there are precedents here. The City of London installed an extremely expensive camera system a few years ago. Last year there was a story (I've forgotten where I read it) about the fact that this expensive camera system had not made a big difference in criminal behavior. The City's solution: have more people monitor the cameras. (In other words: less privacy and less freedom for the wider public.) In other words, the initial expensive expenditure wasn't enough; they were going to spend more money to continue a failed policy.
Of course, the real issue is: what gives Walgreens the right to do what they do? I am inclined to accept the following answer: capitalist firms are "private tyrannies". In other words, morally speaking they have no right whatsoever to do what they do; but politically speaking, they do it because they can--because they have the power. And by borrowing Chomsky's phrase I do not think I am exaggerating one bit.
In the case of Walgreens, the case would be this: have they ever presented any evidence whatsoever for their claim that cameras increase customer safety? If they have never even attempted to make a case for that claim, then my diagnosis is supported.
No comments:
Post a Comment