Walgreens...Nosy staff Violate Consumer Privacy Rights! Managers gouge prices! Deceptive business practices!

I was taken aback when I strolled up to the Pharmacy counter at Walgreens at 3339 South Las Vegas Boulevard day-before-last and overheard the clerk quiz a customer about the cost of a prescription drug pursuant to the individuals insurance coverage.

After noting that the co-pay for the customer picking up the prescription was $3.30, the elderly employee proceeded to poke his nose into the patron's private medical affairs.

"Do you realize that this drug normally costs $1,000.00," he pointedly sniped at the customer (loud enough for all within earshot to hear) who struggled to maintain his composure.

Obviously, the middle-aged man was stunned by the intrusion judging by his negative reaction.

After all, what business was it of the pharmacist's?

Was the crotchety-old clerk jealous of the customer's excellent insurance coverage or was something more sinister afoot?

At this point, the individual stumbled for a response for a second or two.

"I know," he hesitated sincerely at long last, "I am quite lucky. I count my blessings every day," he managed to blurt out, a little emotional over the lack of code of ethics on the part of the ignorant Walgreens employee.

In my opinion, the conversation should never have taken place pursuant to applicable privacy laws.

The pharmacist should have simply checked the ID of the customer, processed the insurance, and collected the co-pay (with no questions asked).

In sum, the Walgreens employee breached a code of ethics and violated the customer's right to privacy in the process.

In fact, his shocking conduct rose to the level of negligence and invasion of privacy.

But, I am not surprised with what went down.

After all, Walgreens has a history of of "crossing the line".

For example, in the past the corporate giant has disclosed confidential private medical information about its customers to third parties without their permission or written consent.

The data was obtained from the prescription records on file which they gathered by virtue of drug sales at their pharmacies around the country.

Walgreens has also been previously slapped on the wrist by the Government for overcharging on sales items (i.e. computer scanners were not adjusted to reflect sales prices so consumers were charged the original ticket price unless they double-checked their bill and noticed the billing error).

The store's actions amounted to false advertising, deceptive business practices, and fraud.

The outlet at 3339 South Las Vegas Boulevard is also guilty of price gouging.

For instance, the items on the shelf are consistently priced at 10% - 20% higher than the products in other stores in the chain around Las Vegas. For example, a container of milk that sells on Fremont Street for $1.39 is sold for $1.99 at the Venetian Hotel location on the strip.

Management has deliberately manipulated the cost of inventory to dishonestly take advantage of the fact tourists lodged at hotels nearby are - not only use that store for convenience sake (distance factors) - also unaware that the items are less costly at Walgreens stores at other locations.

Because I shop at Walgreens stores in - Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Las Vegas - so I am quite familiar with their basic prices and keen to their dishonest business conduct as a result.

Talk about an "evil" Empire!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Advertisers...demands skirt FTC Rules & Regulations!

Occasionally, the gall of some individuals boggles the mind!

The other day, a potential advertiser zipped off an e-mail to me, expressing an interest in posting a link on “The Tattler” site.

In my response, I quoted the fee due and the terms and conditions of the advertising agreement.

When I received a reply back, I was a little startled by the advertiser's  request.

For starters - the individual countered with a rate offer which was bit lower than my going ad fees -  but I was willing to work with the company to bring them into the fold (so-to-speak).

But, the stipulations for the the text ad - and links - were a little off-putting.

For example, the female liaison was quite adamant that I rustle up a post to promote their product  (300 words in length) to include a couple of links to their client's web site.

“I don’t care about editorial control,” she wrote, just before hurling the communication my way over the Internet at lightning speed by e-mail.

Of course, the ignorance of the woman astounded me.

For example, in recent months the Federal Trade Commission became concerned that bloggers were flogging products “for pay” on web sites without proper legal disclosure.

So, the Government watch-dog agency implemented a set of rules and regulations to prevent abuses (such as deceptive business practices and potential fraud) on the Internet.

Bottom line?

Was a blogger promoting a product because he or she backed the item or service one-hundred percent or simply because it was a case of pay-to-play?

In my reply, I noted - rightly so - that when it came to my writing (and the Tattler) I endeavored to maintain integrity in my personal and professional affairs ( it's called journalistic ethics).

I am always seeking subjects to pen a feature on that may be of interest to my readers, though, so it is wholly possible that on occasion I might act on a tip or allow for a post touting a product based on my belief in its value or potential interest to readers.

But, in the specific situation aforementioned, I felt a full disclosure (or disclaimer) - posted in plain view - would be required to satisfy FTC concerns.

Shortly after the FTC regulation kicked in last September, I posted one such disclaimer when I raved about a  local gym - 24 hour fitness - in West Hollywood.

Because my review was glowing - it occurred to me that readers or new visitors to the site unfamiliar with my policies - might assume I benefited (got paid, received a free membership, etc.) from publishing the plug.

I didn’t.

Nonetheless, I posted a notice disclosing that I was not influenced by any incentive, payment, etc.

Once I made a decision on the post noted herein above, I notified the advertiser that - based on the subject matter - I was going to give the green light on the ad.

At this point, I instructed the party to make their payment in advance (in full), and also be sure to include background information on the web site to facilitate the penning of the article.

At this juncture, the advertiser started to play games, which didn’t set well with me.

For starters, the rep noted that her client  preferred to pay only half the sum up-front, with a promise to send on the balance after the material was reviewed and "approved".

Uh-huh.

Initially, the PR office assured me there was “no interest” in editorial control.

When it came time to close the deal, however, they changed their tune.

Or,  were they playing games all along?

Notwithstanding, because I discounted the ad space fee - and they were a first-time advertiser - I could not accept their demands to pay half up front, preview the material, then pay the balance after “copy” approval.

Did they honestly think I have stupid written on my forehead?

Golly, I wasn't born yesterday!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Hillary Clinton fudges on financial docs...Bill reels in hefty sums for thoughts!

Money-grubbing Hillary...no shame!


Some are raising their eyebrows and questioning the integrity of Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, on the heels of the release of financial documents which tend to suggest that she fudged on numbers in a deceitful effort to not only mislead the government but constituents as well.

At issue?

When Mrs. Clinton represented earnings Bill hauled in for services rendered to billionaire buddy Ron Burkle, she cited shocking, low-ball figures.

For example, according to an LA TIMES report (04/05/08), Mrs. Clinton alleged on a Federal Ethics Form that as a Senior Advisor for Yucaipa Cos, Bill was racking in "over" $1,000.00.

But, an examination of financial records released this past week, revealed that the earnings amounted to a staggering 2.6 million dollars for "services" performed between the years 2003-2006.

That is a far cry from a thousand bucks, wouldn't you say?

Without doubt, Mrs. Clinton's calculations on the ethics form were "way off".

Obviously, the paltry sum put forward, was a "smokescreen" designed to conceal the extent of Bill's business ties with Mr. Burkle - and ultimately - prevent any red flags from being raised.

If that wasn't bad enough, another controversy arose when it was disclosed that the former president was reimbursed $800,000.00 from InfoUSA (a consumer data marketing company headed up by another pal, Vinod Gupta) for "sharing his thoughts" on the domestic and global economy and world affairs.

Heh, Mr. Gupta, you can pick my brains any old day for those kind of bucks!

In addition to the astronomical fees aforementioned, stockholders were particularly irked when they learned that the Clintons billed InfoUSA an outlandish sum of $900,000.00 for travel expenses, as well.

The expression "high on the hog" is taken to new levels here.

I wonder, don't the Clinton's have any shame?

Is there no end to the lengths Hillary and Bill will go to prostitute themselves?

Is it just greed, or do they just hate paying their own way?

I wonder how these revelations fall on the heads of voters in the lower income brackets, who - until these disclosures - were inclined to cast a ballot Clinton’s way in the upcoming tail-end of the elections.

What would her response be to their outrage, I wonder.

Let them eat cake?