Costco and Prescription Drug Costs

[helderheid]

If you go to Snopes.com & search " costco drug prices" You can see this is a true article.




COSTCO! read this...

Let's hear it for Costco!! (This is just mind-boggling!) Make sure you read all the way past the list of the drugs. The woman that signed below is a Budget Analyst out of federal Washington, DC offices.


Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a sea rch of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in past issues of Life Extension, a significant percentage of drugs sold in the United States contain active ingredients made in other countries. In our independent investigation of how mu ch profit drug companies really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in some of the most popular drugs sold in America.


The data below speaks for itself.


Celebrex: 100 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $ 0.60
Percent markup: 21,712%



Claritin: 10 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
Percent markup: 30,306%




Keflex: 250 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
Percent markup: 8,372%






Lipitor: 20 mg
Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80
Percent markup: 4,696%


Norvasc: 10 mg
CONSUMER price (100 tablets): $188.29
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
Percent markup: 134,493%




Paxil: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27
Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60
Percent markup: 2,898%



Prevacid: 30 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
Percent marku p: 34,136%





Prilosec : 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.52
Percent markup: 69,417%




Prozac: 20 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $247.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
Percent markup: 224,973%



Tenormin: 50 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
Percent markup: 80,362%





Vasotec: 10 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
Percent markup: 51,185%




Xanax: 1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024

Percent markup: 569,958%

Zestril: 20 mg
Consu mer price (100 tablets): $89.89
Cost of general active ingredients: $3.20
Percent markup: 2,809




Zithromax: 600 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19
Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78
Percent markup: 7,892%




Zocor: 40 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets) : $350 .27
Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63
Percent markup: 4,059%


Zoloft: 50 mg
Consumer price: $206.87
Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75
Percent markup: 11,821%



Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought everyone should know about this. Please read the following and pass it on.

It pays to shop around. This helps t o solve the mystery as to why they can afford to put a Walgreen's on every corner. On Monday night, Steve Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News in Detroi t, did a story on generic drug price gouging by pharmacies. He found in his investigation, that some of these generic drugs were marked up as much as 3,000% or more. Yes, that's not a typo. three thousand percent! So often, we blame the drug companies for the high cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. But in this case, the fault clearly lies with the pharmacies themselves.

For example, if you had to buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100 for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you tha t if you get the generic equivalent, they would only cost $80, making you think you are "saving" $20. What the pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills may have only cost him $10!

At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether or not there were any pharmacies that did not adhere to this practice, and he said that Costco co nsiste ntly charged little over their cost for the generic drugs.



I went to the Costco site, where you can look up any drug, and get its online price. It says that the in-store prices are consistent with the online pr ices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own experience, I had to use the drug, Compazine, which helps prevent nausea in chemo patients.



I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I checked the price at Costco, and I could have bought 100 pills for $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150 at Costco for $28.08.

I would like to mention, that although Costco is a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at t he door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in (this is true).

I went there this past Thursday and asked them. I am asking each of you to please help me by copying this letter, and passing it onto your own e-mail list, and send it to everyone you know with an e-mail address.

Sharon L. Davis
Budget Analyst
U.S . Department of Commerce
Room 6839
Office Ph: 202-482-4458
Office Fax: [phone]
E-mail Address: [e-mail]

[walldude]

1. Wow great post and great timing

My wife just lost her medicade and when we went to pay for her pills is was over $300... We have a Costco membership and are on our way there now, going to have to pay a visit to the pharmacy.. Thanks! K&R

[liberaldemocrat7]

42. Costco cannot help me in this case.

I get free samples of a medication that would normally cost 170 dollars at a local Legend pharmacy in New York for 30 capsules. I checked the Costco price and 30 capsules would cost 107 dollars, a 63 dollar savings. I find 107 dollars a month even with Costco outrageous for this drug made by Wyeth.

I wouldn't mind paying 20 dollars a month for these 30 capsules if Medicare implemented a simple 80 percent coverage prescription drug benefit but to pay 107 dollars a month at Costco costs too much.

I told them about a Nassau County RX card and they said it would only knock off 1 dollar. What a joke.

[walldude]

61. Yeah we just got back.. there is a small savings

on the stuff my wife needs but not nearly enough..

[renate]

2. this doesn't surprise me

Costco rocks totally.
:loveya:

[hamerfan]

3. Thanks for the timely post!

:kick: and a :hug:
dumpbush

[AZBlue]

4. Do you have a link to the original to pass on?

I'd like to e-mail as well as print it out. Thanks!!

K&R

[agtcovert]

12. Agreed....

This is absolutely insane.

Thank you for the info!

[dflprincess]

5. My sister-in-law's dog is on Prozac (don't ask)

I'm not sure of the dosage, but I've picked the pills up for her and 100 tablets for the dog would run about $17.00. I've heard before that there are vast differences between what gets charged for animal vs human prescriptions. The pharmacuetical companies claim that the drugs dispensed by vets (even when it's a drug humans use) don't have the same quality controls on them. Somehow, I doubt that they have one assembly line at the plant for dogs and one for humans.


I read an article not too long ago where the writer ended up speculating on what the drug companies would charge for asprin if it were just invented today.

[NashVegas]

14. If Aspirin Were Invented Today

Drug companies would tear each other apart for the right to patent the Willow tree.

[China_cat]

22. Big difference in cost, no difference in med.

My dog was on Cipro for a long time. A 30 day supply cost us $15. Eckerd’s Pharmacy– quoted a price of $113.39 for 20 capsules of 500mg (same size we got for the dog and split) Same pills, verified by photo in the PDR, same company.

[AZBlue]

49. It's so absurd! It's the same drug.

My parents had a dog with serious heart problems and her meds were the exact same drugs any senior would use. I've had to get meds for my cat before and they too were the same exact thing. If they weren't they wouldn't have been available at the same pharmacy that my meds come from. As you said, there aren't separate assembly lines - it's just another way to rip off the consumer.

This is a perfect example why we really need to push for health care reform in the US! The insurance and pharmaceutical companies participate in legal theft and fraud.

[Misskittycat]

72. I just picked up 120 tablets at Costco today for $10.00. That's right, 10 bucks. n/t

[bananas]

6. "you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there"

I've mentioned this on DU before:
"I would like to mention, that although Costco is a "membership" type store, you do NOT have to be a member to buy prescriptions there, as it is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at t he door that you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in (this is true)."

[Xithras]

65. Just be aware that not all the card checkers know that.

I have a Costco membership but don't normally carry the card (my wife does most of our Costco shopping, so I rarely need it). When I attempted to pick up a prescription once without my card, it took a 5 minute argument and a call to the manager before they would let me in. The door guy insisted that I couldn't go in, but eventually let me walk up to the membership desk. The people at the membership desk had no clue what I was talking about and just wanted to print me out a temporary membership card. They were just starting that process when the manager finally showed up, conceded that I was technically right, and allowed me to visit the pharmacy with a "We don't normally allow this, but you can use it this time...next time bring your card."

Just be aware that low-paid retail staff can't really be expected to know what the relevant federal laws are. You might get lucky, but you also might get hassled. Just stand up for your rights, stand your ground, and eventually someone who knows what they're doing will show up.

Even the guy IN the pharmacy, a PHARMACIST who should know the law, had to call the manager to check when I didn't have my card for him to swipe.

[druidity33]

67. "low-paid retail"?!?!?

I'd LOVE to get a job at CostCo... their starting pay is like $16 an hour. People never leave their jobs there because it's such a great place to work. Very Progressive employer. I can't help but feel you just had a day with real bum luck, as every time i have been to a Costco (NY, MA, NH, VT) i have had a pleasant experience. I try to make sure i always ask an employee "So, how do you like working here?". Not once but 3x out of the 5 or so times i've asked i've gotten the same EXACT reply... "Best job i've ever had"

:shrug:

[Xithras]

69. The "bouncers" in every Costco I've visited tend to be pricks.

I guess it's kinda neccesary, but every single time I've tried to stop at Costco without a card they've been incredibly rude. I'm sure they have to bounce people all day, but it's one aspect of Costco that I've always disliked. No problems if I remember my card though.

[harlinchi]

7. That would be great in Phila. except there is none within 13.5 miles.

I wonder why they wouldn't find it profitable to operate in the largest population center in the area? There sure are a lot of income-challenged folks who could benefit!

[K8-EEE]

9. You can get prescriptions by mail from Costco! With no membership!

Check into it -- it's much easier than going to the pharmacy! My husband gets his BP meds that way, three months' worth at a time...really convenient.

[K8-EEE]

8. Costco Supports DEM CANDIDATES...

And they pay competitive wages and healthcare...if you don't have a Costco shop Costco.com instead of Wallyworld whenever possible, support a true-blue company! VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS!

[Systematic Chaos]

10. This sure helps explain some things.

Like, why Costco is constantly catching flak for their "business practices" and being criticized for "not doing enough for their investors" or whatever, as seen in dozens of previous threads here.

Who the F**K do they think they are, selling medications at a profit yet sill doing their damndest to keep them affordable?

Just don't tell Oxy-Rush. Let him buy his shit for 984379794173284571842675% more. :rofl:

[Schema Thing]

11. Thanks for the info, BUT...

... the snopes site says the first part of your post is of "dubious accuracy and has little relevance".


The Costco info is true and great to know however.

[Doctor_J]

13. Costco is one of the bluest of companies

Supporting them is good for america.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

15. The cost of active ingredients is a small part of drug costs

You're paying for the millions of dollars spent by private firms on research.

I used to work for one of these companies and yes, they spend millions of corporate dollars on R&D. The government doesn't fund that for them.

Do some companies gouge? Probably, but the businesses have to make enough money on the successes to pay for future research.

[Shallah Kali]

62. What of the Gov research *given* to drug companies?

They are supposed to charge a 'reasonable' mark up yet when granted patents on drugs developed and tested with taxpayer money yet that is never enforced leaving the drugs with the same high markup. Also they spend more on advertising than on R&D. From tv ads to the crates of pens they hand out to doctors. Then there are the companies that give doctors bonuses like vacations if they prescribe enough of their drugs. A friend of my Grandmother recently went over a month without blood pressure and diabetes medication because she couldn't afford it on top of food and shelter. thankfully her doc got her enough samples to keep her going.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

63. I don't know of any top selling drugs where the government did the R&D

I think the idea that the government gives these companies drugs it has already developed is mostly urban myth. I don't know of a single one. I worked at Burroughs Wellcome for nine years.

I'm sorry for your Grandmother's friend having to skip her meds. It sucks that Medicare doesn't cover drugs.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. ****You really should read the entire article****

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/generic.asp

If you scroll down toward the bottom:


Later versions of this message had the following table added to the beginning:

Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active ingredient in prescription medications?

<snip>

This chart is of dubious accuracy has little relevance (other than an inflammatory one), as far more goes into the retail pricing of drugs than the raw cost of their active ingredients. Pharmaceutical companies expend money on the research and development costs of creating the drugs, plus the overhead costs of manufacturing, marketing, and shipping them; as well, pharmacies must sell drugs for more than their wholesale prices in order to cover the overhead costs of store operations (including pharmacists' salaries).

[helderheid]

17. thank you Freddie Stubbs - Sorry - I took the poster's word on it

[Midlodemocrat]

18. I was just going to mention this.

R&D is the most expensive component of manufacturing pharmaceuticals. Some drugs take ten or more years to make it to market.

[quiet.american]

19. But regardless of where the price inflation comes from, drug prices are obviously out of control.

The television investigation found drug prices that were inflated at 3000%! If it were impossible to make a profit charging less for popular medications that sell in high volumes, then Costco would not be able to offer them at all at the significantly lower costs that they do.

(Where would the failed CEO of Pfizer be without his $180 million severance package? Wonder where that money came from?)

[LSK]

20. I thought of that, but it does not add up to 3000% more

Lots of medical research happens at Universities at no cost to drug companies.

Manufacturing mass produced pills cannot cost that much. Once a machine is made, its made.

Shipping?? LOL we are talking about pills here, not bigscreen TVs.

Marketing?? Make it cheaper and you will sell.

A box of Aspirin can be had for roughly $10. Why should pills costs much more than that?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Yes, there's medical research at universities.

That doesn't quite cut it though in bringing new drugs to market.

Drug companies invest on average about a $1,000,000,000 for each new drug. That's the average. There are drugs that ended up costing $20,000,000,000 and sometimes they don't even get approved for human use and it's a complete loss.

"Manufacturing mass produced pills cannot cost that much. Once a machine is made, its made."

Are you kidding? First they got to make the machines, then they have to purchase the raw materials, some of which can be quite expensive, and they have to use huge amounts of solvents, also quite expensive. Especially considering the price of petroleum. And they've also got to carefully monitor quality control along every step of the process. And so on.

"Marketing?? Make it cheaper and you will sell."

Unless you're competitor's selling better.

"A box of Aspirin can be had for roughly $10. Why should pills costs much more than that?"

Hey, I can get a bag of M&Ms for fifty cents. Unfortunately, M&Ms aren't aspirin. And aspirin isn't an expensive prescription drug. The industrial synthesis of aspirin is a trivial three step process involving very cheap materials- CO2, NaOH, H2SO4, etc. There are fundamental differences between making aspirin and making, say, taxol.

[nashville_brook]

45. how much research goes into cars or agricultural methods?

this argument goes a smidgeon to explaining the costs -- sure, get your payback and some profit. but you don't get to charge every drug outrageous mark-up FOREVER.

also, consider WHAT drugs are getting the money spent on research. are the choices for research funding based on need and social good OR potential profitability? are diseases being addressed or lifestyle issues?

this argument that "research drives drug costs" is beginning to crack at the seams. it's going to take quite a bit of flacksterism to keep it together enough to support the staus quo for another decade. the drug companies are going to have to come up with another bugaboo if they want to continue with the monopoly.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. I couldn't tell you.

Although I doubt it's a billion per new car.

Furthermore, cars are significantly marked up over the price of their raw materials, so I don't get your point.

"but you don't get to charge every drug outrageous mark-up FOREVER."

Well, no. Drug companies get to cover the cost of their investments and make profits for twenty years or so until their patent runs up, and then they have to compete with the generic drug companies.

"also, consider WHAT drugs are getting the money spent on research. are the choices for research funding based on need and social good OR potential profitability?"

As with any other business, the drug companies invest in avenues of research that are likely to be profitable. Want to invest in research that is high risk but socially good? Nobody's stopping you.

"this argument that "research drives drug costs" is beginning to crack at the seams. it's going to take quite a bit of flacksterism to keep it together enough to support the staus quo for another decade."

Really? Because the cost of R&D for new drugs is only going up.

[sendero]

64. While I agree with you...

... that the "cost of raw materials" number is practically meaningless, pharmaceutical companies routinely make obscene profits.

That is not because they are wonderful, it is because they specialize in creating monopoly products and extracting every possible cent from their sale.

[nashville_brook]

21. this is disputable -- research is funded by governments and universities

as discussed in this article that was posted in LBN last week.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1981199,00.html

Scientists find way to slash cost of drugs
Indian-backed approach could aid poor nations and cut NHS bills

Sarah Boseley, health editor
Tuesday January 2, 2007
The Guardian

(snip)

Professor Shaunak says it is time that the monopoly on drug invention and production by multinational corporations - which charge high prices because they need to make big profits for their shareholders - was broken.

"The pharmaceutical industry has convinced us that we have to spend billions of pounds to invent each drug," he said. "We have spent a few millions. Yes, it will be a threat to the monopoly that there is.

"I'm not only an inventor of medicines - I'm an end user. We have become so completely dependent on the big pharmaceutical industry to provide all the medicines we use.

"Why should we be completely dependent on them when we do all the creative stuff in the universities? Maybe the time has come to say why can't somebody else do it? What we have been struck by is that once we have started to do it, it is not so difficult."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. That article is a bad joke.

Scientists have been using that technique to get around patents for decades.

[Xithras]

66. Very few modern drugs are developed in universities, and almost none by the gov

Most drugs developed today are developed by private labs. Why? Because when a genius comes up with a new idea for a drug, he has three choices: 1) Develop it as a university or government research project, making very little money, continuously fighting for funding, and suffering under onerous government and school regulations; Or 2) Go to work for big pharma, where your new idea will be developed quickly, and your name on the patent gurantees you a few million in fees and bonuses; Or 3) Go out on your own, float your idea to some biotech VC's, found your own small research lab to develop the medicine, and then sell the company and patented medicine to big pharma after the research is completed...putting tens of millions of dollars in your pocket.

FYI, there have been documented cases of uni and government researchers bolting to the private sector just before "miraculously" developing some billion dollar drug breakthrough. The solution, IMO, is to provide those researchers with more incentive to stay...like permitting them to collect royalties on their creations. Not tens of millions, of course, but a uni researcher slumming it for $50,000 a year deserves some compensation for developing a drug that cures AIDS, cancer, or the common cold. The current system, which essentially gives away taxpayer funded research as public domain, creates an environment where only the most utopian researchers are willing to stay for any length of time. Most look at government work as simply being a temporary stop until they develop an idea that will make them some real money.

[porphyrian]

23. How do you justify a 570,000% markup of an antidepressant?!

Thanks for posting this.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. Which antidepressant is marked up 570,000%?

Cas you site a source?

[porphyrian]

26. Did you read the OP at all?

"Xanax: 1 mg
Consumer price (100 tablets): $136.79
Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
Percent markup: 569,958%"

I rounded up. Sue me.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. I certainly did. And I was sceptical. So I did and quick search and found

that the OP was bogus: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3075547&mesg_id=3075938

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. Pardon me for being a little sceptical rather than believeing any dubious statement posted

on an Internet message board.

[porphyrian]

35. I don't give a fuck what you believe. - n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. That's why I post links to back up my arguements

;)

[porphyrian]

39. Anyone can post a link. That doesn't make your argument solid. - n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. I am simply using the website that the OP was referring to

Perhaps you should read it and decide if it supports the OP's arguement.

[porphyrian]

47. I did read it, thus my original post. You didn't until after deciding to be a tool to me. - n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. You did read it?

Because in post #36 you seemed under the impression that the adjectives "dubious" "inflammatory" and "irrelevant" were my own.

[porphyrian]

52. When you didn't use quotation marks, you made them your own.

You want me to teach you basic English grammar now?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. LOL.

"You want me to teach you basic English grammar now?"

Well, are you through teaching me how to be "dubious," "inflammatory," and irrelevant yet?

[porphyrian]

54. Is that what I'm doing? - n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Pretty much.

I haven't seen you argue any of the points. Just get angry and start calling names.

[porphyrian]

58. What points were I trying to argue?

I made a post addressing the text of the OP. Some asshole acted like I made it up, so I quoted what I was talking about for them. Then they proceeded to give me shit about it, like I wrote the claim in the first place. I pointed out that doing so made them a dick. Then you decided to jump into the fray. I couldn't remember if I had shit in your Wheaties recently or not, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't call you a dick yet, not that you haven't acted like one. Now, you seem to think I'm trying to prove something rather than simply stand up for myself. Fuck all of you. I hope you get to read this before it's deleted.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

59. Well, I read it.

Certainly doesn't contradict anything snopes had to say on the issue.

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. ...

As opposed to being dubious, inflammatory, and irrelevant?

[porphyrian]

36. Well, at least you pulled out the ten cent adjectives. - n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Yes.

But it's marked down 100% from your ten dollar bullshit.

[porphyrian]

40. Feel better now? - n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. I feel fine.

You?

[porphyrian]

48. I'm good. Thanks for caring. - n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Snopes also says dubious, inflammatory, and irrelevant.

A BMW might cost fifty, hundred bucks in terms of its materials. Unfortunately, there's also things like engineering and manufacturing to worry about.

[Last Stand]

41. R & is only marginally less relavent to the inflated costs that Big Pharm charges.

Classic excuse for gouging people who need meds. Big Pharm is one of the most profitable industries in the world, and they pay their employees exceptionally well while still making a killing (pardon the pun.)

I just got scripted 24 pills for migraines. Walgreens gave me 6 pills for my $40 copayment, saying the insurance company would only cover 4 at a time because 24 would cost over $900. I told them my insurance company should squeeze the Pharmaceutical company and not me.

Costco sells the same 6 pills for $108, less than half what Walgreens claimed my insurance company would have to pay. What a bunch of bullshit. What am I, stupid?

Can't wait for Michael Moore's "SICKO."


COSTCO---->>>>:yourock:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. The $108 you save at Costco...

Would have been $108 going to Walgreens, not the pharm companies.

[zanne]

60. Do you work for/invest in any pharmaceutical companies?

You seem to be working very hard on this thread, trying to convince us that the pharmaceutical companies are just a bunch of great guys.

[Last Stand]

70. Don't be silly. Big Pharm and Walgreens share a bed

...with my insurer.

Let's ask the question another way: If the funding of R&D is the stated reason for Big Pharm charging their astronimical prices to consumers, then why don't they use the same logic in curtailing executive salaries and corporate profits?

Let me guess, it would be "Socialism" and no one would work for them. See, I'm catching on!

[williesgirl]

29. Thanks, just lost health ins/pres card - Cosco will save us a ton of money

since my daughter and I are both disabled and unfortunately on alot of drugs. Really appreciate the money saving info. recommended

[progressoid]

33. While I agree there are problems w/ the price of drugs, this post has problems also

It isn't as simple as the price of the ingredients. Sheesh.

[SeattleGirl]

55. That's it. I'm switching to Costco's pharmacy!!

Just got online and checked their prices for the three meds I take every month. All three come in generic form, which is what I buy. At my current pharmacy, it costs me about $150 a month (I don't have insurance). At Costco, the three would be $68!!!! That's less than half of what I've been paying! Woohoo!!!!

[bluewave]

57. A little misleading: doesn't include the cost of R&A. Still, the markup is too high

even with R&A. Costco is from my home state, and we are proud of the example they set. Costco workers are motivated and generate more $/employee and $/square foot than WalMart. The CEO doesn't loot the company (he makes about $200k/year which is IMO reasonable).

WalMart has attempted to destroy them by Sam's Club, since Costco embarrasses the industry. DO NOT SHOP AT SAM'S CLUB!

[earth mom]

68. Just another example of how the Pharma giants are screwing over the public.

What they do should be criminal! The greedy bastards belong in jail! :grr:

Crimes of the Pharma Giants:

1. Pushing drugs-often unneeded-at the public for every little ache and pain!

2. Poisoning infants with their mercury laden vaccines and getting away with it!

3. Marking the price of drugs up to such an extent that often people can't afford medicine they DO need!

What those bastards do is ethically and morally sickening! :puke:

[keepCAblue]

71. Wow. Costco's online price for my asthma inhaler (generic)

PROVENTIL 90 MCG INHALER(SCH)--->$39.56....$76.52....$113.98
Drug Description

ALBUTEROL 90 MCG INHALER(WAR)--->$ 9.75....$16.29....$22.64
Generic Alternative

To compare Costco online with Walgreens online:

For the 17 GM size:
Costco Proventil $39.56
Costco Generic $9.75

Walgreens Proventil $45.99
Walgreens Generic $16.99

For the 51 GM size:
Costco Proventil $113.98
Walgreens Proventil $137.89