Who Said All Pharmaceutical Giants Were Bad?

Not McKesson - it is suing the state of Arkansas for breach of contract and deception and stopping mass illegal executions!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/15/arkansas-executions-mckesson-sues-lethal-injection

 

McKesson bought a company I use for home delivery of durable medical devices about a year and a half ago. Through the year the company (under the McKesson name) got up to 9 months behind on billing for the products. Even with calls to the health ins provider and later with the health ins provider and their sub-contracted billing service and even later with all 3 on conference calls still after 9 months, no solution. I finally switch providers (not McKesson) and got billed correctly. Still expecting a bill from McKesson for the 3 un-billed /un-collected amounts. I have their money still waitng for a proper billing. McKesson may be making a name for themselves but since I'm not involved in the legal system, I can make sure I better keep their money available indefinitely. McKesson should be fighting to provide all their customers with first class service , first!

 

Fortunately as money-grabbing as most Big Pharma companies are, on this occasion McKesson is not standing for the lying and deception of the Republican Governor of Arkansas who wants to execute 8 people in 11 days. That kind of 'festival of death' shouldn't happen anywhere and least of all a so-called 'beacon' of humanity, and luckily I live in one of the 183 member states of the UN that doesn't indulge in that kind of inhuman brutality, the USA being the only western country that does and one of only 10 in the world.

 

That's not my fight. But any company that has done wrong or damage to me, I will voice my disapproval of the company. And McKesson has earned my disrespect. I have no issue with Arkansas or any of the 8 convicts or the USA. Those 3 entities can have their fight. If McKesson takes advantage or creates problems with me, how many people worldwide do they have an effect on. More than 8.

 

That's what this thread is about - illegal means to obtain drugs. You need to start your own thread on the generality of Big Pharma's good or bad accounting practices and not divert this one.

 

I don't really think this forum is interested in such topics, but then I'm not in a position to decide. I'm responding to the name you brought up. I'm not a convict, and have no lawyers or such on my side and if I was denied my service because of credit reports or past due bills my death sentence would be done in about 4 days! McKesson has no respect from me regardless of their fight.

 

No you are not fortunately.

 

Hmmm... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-punished-by-death-2/?utm_term=.7da1f8e4e32c

Many of these nations have the death penalty, for homosexuality. Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan to mention a few. They seem to be in the UN. http://www.un.org/en/member-states/index.html

 

From your link in the OP:

If you look back over the last 100 years, that is hardly even close to a "historic killing spree" regardless of your thought on capital punishment.

 

You should re-read his statement.

 

How so?

 

Not many - 10 out of 193 UN member states.
And trying to execute 8 human beings in 11 days because the drugs are about to expire IS a killing spree, and lying to a drug supplier about the intended drug use is a criminal act.

 

Seriously? Was it your intent to corroborate his statement?

 

No, actually I was trying to point out the dichotomy of a "festival of death" of people convicted of a capital crime (right or wrong) type of drug used, the UN, and certain UN members who stone homosexuals without a trial...

If we figure 10 out of 200 UN members, that is 5% that think killing people for homosexuality is OK.

And, last I checked, the US does not execute homosexuals on sight. Seems to me the UN is not high on the list of human rights.

 

This only reinforces his point.

 

Whether people are subject to capital punishment for their sexuality or because they committed a capital offence is neither here nor there.
But at least in the USA -the only western developed nation to do it for any reason - should do it by abiding with the law. Arkansas didn't and that's why a Federal judge has imposed an injunction until the bona fide of the complaint from McKesson has been established.
That's called 'the rule of law' and yes it can be inconvenient for those who don't subscribe to it.

 

Is their conviction rule of law as well?

 

https://www.innocenceproject.org/

 

I'm sure you know exactly what the 'rule of law' means.