Bruce Banner Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 This latest storm about Boots and the morning after pill reminds me of why I never set foot in the place. Years ago, I used Boots Opticians for contact lenses. Now, I'm "never" late, so I would always arrive fifteen minutes early for an appointment and wait a further half an hour because the optician was usually running late. One day, I was delayed in dreadful traffic and arrived five minutes late, the optician gave me a lecture about time keeping and refused to see me, so I went elsewhere and got much better service. Years later, I went into Boots for some reading glasses. Chose the pair I wanted and went to the till, only to be told that they wouldn't let me buy them if I wouldn't read their test card which was a nonsense as I was wearing my lenses at the time so wouldn't be able to read the card with double correction. They were adamant, so I left the glasses at the checkout and bought an identical pair two doors down for half the price. A truly pompous company . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashmonitor Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 I can see you are feeling flushed, fifteen quid all in on the Tesco basicline is my spend on glasses. Ok you don't get get the red carpet treatment, the cheek of it coming in for our basicline glasses not ordering any extras like coatings and getting a free eye test to boot. Another example of ball crunching deflation, my first pair thirty five years ago were one hundred and fifty quid plus eye test, those were the days when the local opticians were having a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SillyBilly Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Can't stand them but that is because I have misfortune of having to work with them - we supply them with quite a few cosmetic ingredients. They have an online portal where you have to jump through hoop after nonsensical hoop to provide regulatory information on the ingredient. Precious working time you have to waste to prevent their army of admin minions ringing and e-mailing constantly as to why the jobs-for-boots portal (paid for by the supplier by the slim margins) is not updated - the info is in the Safety Data Sheet/Technical Sheet, just read them like 99% of others do! Doesn't help its been designed by people who don't understand chemisty/regulations so you can't accurately describe anything with their defined list of answers. Then they chase you as to why its not been filled in...Makes me angry just typing! Perhaps I just have a SME mentality of constantly needing to get s**t done - slow and bureaucratic processes drive me up the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Before we overdo the Boots hating let's just examine the total hypocrisy of MPs. Jess Phillips for instance: Quote Jess Phillips, the MP for Birmingham Yardley encouraged a boycott, telling The Telegraph: "It's totally unacceptable and also totally commercial, they're willing to take a moral stance if it pays them. They're still willing to sell it. "It's clearly a commercial interest on their part. Their position infantalises women's choices. Right. So what about the Sugar Tax? MPs voted for that. How patronizing to suggest I need an MP to tell me what sugar I should eat, and then to make it more expensive just so that they can get more money in to spend on their own pet projects. I mean to say, if they think sugar is that bad, ban it! As jess says "they are still willing to sell it." Same goes for tobacco. Yep, it costs the tNHS, but not as much as smoking contributes to public coffers. Besides so do STDs, and nobody is paying HMRC for shagging (well, maybe ccc). Okay, the MAP stops a few unwanted pregnancies. But there are other methods. Same goes for alcohol. My point is simply, if we think people need nannying over sugar, booze and fags, why not shagging? PS: isn't it great that you can just write shagging w/o it being starred out? It makes me want to just keep doing it: shagging! Shagging! SHAGGING! ... ... you don't suppose I'm suffering from tourrets do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 They were saying on the radio, someone in the know apparently that the cost price for this drug is £3.50 a tablet.....a huge mark up (and the consultation questions took less than one min in time)......but so are other generic drugs with the boots label on them such as ibuprofen approx £2 pack price more expensive than same sold in a small independent local pharmacist, and a lot more than the supermarkets sell for.......is it because they are private equity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted July 22, 2017 Author Share Posted July 22, 2017 Personally, I object to all nannying. Anything forced on me to protect me from myself makes me see red. Sugar, booze, fags, seatbelts, crash helmets, enforced eye tests.... you name it, I'm against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will! Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Sledgehead said: Same goes for tobacco. Yep, it costs the tNHS, but not as much as smoking contributes to public coffers. That used to be true but hasn't been so for about 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Will! said: That used to be true but hasn't been so for about 15 years. Not sure about that: Fullfact Returning to the original topic, what business is it of MPs what private businesses charge for commercial products? Are rubber johnny prices regulated (cartellized?). Another nail in the coffin of free markets ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash4781 Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Boots in my experience is always the most expensive place to get pharmacy and other products. I have seen standard toothbrushs for £4 each, paracetamol £1. It is truly breathtaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will! Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 15 minutes ago, Sledgehead said: Not sure about that: Fullfact That cost estimate is from 2006. Smokers used to get sick and die quickly and cheaply. Now they get sick and live longer and more expensively. I would go into more detail but I'm really busy at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted July 22, 2017 Author Share Posted July 22, 2017 17 minutes ago, Sledgehead said: Not sure about that: Fullfact Returning to the original topic, what business is it of MPs what private businesses charge for commercial products? Are rubber johnny prices regulated (cartellized?). Another nail in the coffin of free markets ... I agree. It's their holier than thou attitude that gets my goat, they should concern themselves with selling product for the best price they can get for it, not nannying their customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, Will! said: That cost estimate is from 2006. Smokers used to get sick and die quickly and cheaply. Now they get sick and live longer and more expensively. I would go into more detail but I'm really busy at the moment. Which cost estimate? there are many there. The article has used indexation etc to try to draw a conclusion of costs and exchequer incomes circa October 2015. If you think about it, the site is called "Fullfact", not "OutOfDateFullfact". Why would they bother publishing stuff that referred to prices out of date by 9 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 10 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said: I agree. It's their holier than thou attitude that gets my goat, they should concern themselves with selling product for the best price they can get for it, not nannying their customers. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will! Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Sledgehead said: Which cost estimate? there are many there. The article has used indexation etc to try to draw a conclusion of costs and exchequer incomes circa October 2015. I count two and neither have data later than 2006. There's more to increased costs than indexation, mostly due to life-prolonging medical interventions. 1 minute ago, Sledgehead said: If you think about it, the site is called "Fullfact", not "OutOfDateFullfact". Why would they bother publishing stuff that referred to prices out of date by 9 years? They smoke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, Will! said: I count two and neither have data later than 2006. There's more to increased costs than indexation, mostly due to life-prolonging medical interventions. They smoke? Okay, where do you see the cost vs income? What are your sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChewingGrass Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Out of curiosity I looked into who owns Boots this morning (indeed it was the morning after the night before) as I knew it wasn't a bunch of Brits anymore. Lo and behold its now a bunch of yankee parasites, with the first 2007 private equity ones offloading it in 2014 to Walgreens who as of August 31, 2016, operate 8,175 stores in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, ChewingGrass said: Out of curiosity I looked into who owns Boots this morning (indeed it was the morning after the night before) as I knew it wasn't a bunch of Brits anymore. Lo and behold its now a bunch of yankee parasites, with the first 2007 private equity ones offloading it in 2014 to Walgreens who as of August 31, 2016, operate 8,175 stores in the US. why are they parasites? companies need capital. investors are due a return. who's moralizing now? we know americans can take a v different view over termination. are they moralizing? or are we moralizing about the rights of women? two sides. no black. no white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longgone Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 surprised anyone shops in that fooking rip off place. lemsip £4.50 , same pack in the poundshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarky Cat Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 On 22/07/2017 at 6:36 PM, Sledgehead said: Which cost estimate? there are many there. The article has used indexation etc to try to draw a conclusion of costs and exchequer incomes circa October 2015. If you think about it, the site is called "Fullfact", not "OutOfDateFullfact". Why would they bother publishing stuff that referred to prices out of date by 9 years? That site looks pretty good, but medical inflation runs ahead of the rate of general inflation used in their calculations - from what I can remember it is about 5% higher pa currently - so around 8% For illustration, a single inhaler, that lasts one month, to treat a smoker with lung disease can cost over £40. They may be on 2 or 3 of these, and that's just a single smoking-related condition A very crude estimation would then place the cost pa to the UK at £12bn based on medical inflation from the previous figure they have- i.e roughly the tax take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledMatty Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 Boots in Thailand is a total rip off. Much cheaper to go to a Watsons (U.S. brand) for pretty much anything. I bought some sun screen once in a Boots (Heathrow) and it was faulty. Never had sunburn so bad. Guess I should have sued their asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sledgehead Posted July 29, 2017 Share Posted July 29, 2017 On 7/23/2017 at 10:21 PM, Clarky Cat said: That site looks pretty good, but medical inflation runs ahead of the rate of general inflation used in their calculations - from what I can remember it is about 5% higher pa currently - so around 8% For illustration, a single inhaler, that lasts one month, to treat a smoker with lung disease can cost over £40. They may be on 2 or 3 of these, and that's just a single smoking-related condition A very crude estimation would then place the cost pa to the UK at £12bn based on medical inflation from the previous figure they have- i.e roughly the tax take. But £40 x 12 x 1,000,000 = ~£0.5bn Not £12bn How are you getting this £12bn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.