Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

41% Positive

Analyzed from 2191 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#tariffs#congress#still#medication#trump#executive#pharmacies#more#right#https

Discussion (143 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

kimos•1 day ago
This is actually tragic.

I worked for an online pharmacy in Canada for many years, and it’s fraught and full of grey areas for sure. But so so many Americans count on importing generics to afford their medication. You’re talking several times the price difference for the same pills, life changing amounts of money for older people on fixed incomes with health problems. They will simply not be able to access their medication anymore.

PunchyHamster•1 day ago
I'd imagine even with duty added they'd still end up being multiple times cheaper
hexapus•1 day ago
Yeah, it would...and yet, they covered that as well with another recent change: Packages from foreign and Canadian online pharmacies will be prohibited from entering the U.S. if the same medication is sold domestically or if the foreign pharmacy targets U.S. buyers.
kimos•1 day ago
It is rarely enforced though. And the pharmacies will just replace it and ship it again.
jojobas•1 day ago
Are we talking duties imposed on the generics, or generics imports outright banned?
bitshiftfaced•about 11 hours ago
You're claiming that generics tend to be cheaper in Canada than the US. What are you basing this belief on?
m-p-3•about 10 hours ago
Overall generic drugs in the US are indeed cheaper than in Canada, but that is not the case if you don't have insurance coverage. Without that, it might be cheaper for some to order the Canadian generic if they can't afford insurance.

The other factor is not price, but availability. Some generic are in limited supply or are outright not available in the US.

QuantumGood•about 7 hours ago
Generics need to be more carefully sourced if outside the U.S. I prefer brand names from reputable manufacturing areas (Singpore, Germany, etc.), and can get them for close to the price for generics, often starting research at PharmacyChecker.com
bayarearefugee•1 day ago
goes into effect 12 days before a midterm election that is already starting to look like a blue tsunami.

It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.

biglyburrito•1 day ago
Never interrupt your enemy when they are busy making a mistake.
tremon•1 day ago
Never assume your enemy is making a mistake either, unless you possess the gift of perfect knowledge.
amanaplanacanal•about 24 hours ago
Hard to see how making things more expensive for consumers is not a mistake, but I could totally be missing something.
oliculipolicula•about 23 hours ago
you'll soon find out that I'm _also_ the bond market

--Scott "The House" Bessent maybe?

sanp•1 day ago
Assuming there is no chicanery
ModernMech•about 14 hours ago
They are not planning on winning any more elections from here on out, I don't know what other people saw on J6 to make them think that's not the strategy from now on, whenever they lose an election.
adastra22•1 day ago
midterms are in November?
mmh0000•about 23 hours ago
People are downvoting you.

But I'm assuming this was a joke about the conspiracy that midterms will be canceled one way or another due to a "national emergency". Which, sadly, is much more probable than it should be.

jacobolus•1 day ago
"The compliance date for 19 CFR 145.12(a)(2)(v) and (vi) is on October 22, 2026"
parl_match•1 day ago
wait until you find out what month is before november lol
cyanydeez•1 day ago
you're assuming media gives a lick about doing more than soundbites. The actual affect will be at best, 2 weeks after this is implemented, but probably 2 months while they actually figure out what legal means they can to infer which packages they can safely claim are foreign, along with actual foreign pharmacies giving 2 shits about todays shipping.
yieldcrv•1 day ago
10 years of believing your color coded wave of choice is going to happen and still winding up with a 50-50 senate

the seats necessary to alter that aren't even open, how gullible do people have to be? well, not very, independents are the largest bloc now, but of the remaining partisans... hello? your algorithm is fake

gs17•1 day ago
> the seats necessary to alter that aren't even open

Seems to be anyone's win right now: https://www.realclearpolling.com/maps/senate/2026/toss-up (and RCP is considered to be conservative).

bryanlarsen•1 day ago
Nate Silver now has it at a 66% chance that the Dems take the senate. (https://www.natesilver.net/p/expert-ratings-are-ignoring-sig...)

Granted, 66% chance is still essentially a toss up.

yieldcrv•1 day ago
a 51% Senate gets to do agency appointments, judge appointments, and particularly SCOTUS

but it cant pass any laws. they’re still cooked by the filibuster (until they get bored of it)

_DeadFred_•about 24 hours ago
'Kamala is no different than Trump, and she didn't earn your vote, you should just stay home' vibes.

We have learned Kamala was in fact much, much different than Trump, and many peoples rights have been trampled because of this sort of nonsense fatalism.

yieldcrv•about 22 hours ago
the adults are talking about the Senate, one of the chambers of Congress. Has almost nothing to do with the President, especially not how they are elected.
Perenti•1 day ago
The hoops you poor Americans have to jump through to get affordable health care is ridiculous in what is presented as a developed nation.
Henchman21•about 1 hour ago
We are a developed nation. Just not a civilized nation. It is incredibly disheartening if you live here to be knee deep in the spectacle. The hate just never ends.
solfox•1 day ago
The hoops are in place to ensure those at the top continue to get their take.
expedition32•about 18 hours ago
It is deliberate. Americans want the hoops because they hate poor people.
stvltvs•about 11 hours ago
And we don't realize that we are the poor just because we can point to poorer people.
bdangubic•1 day ago
you said this as if we were developed nation :)
happyopossum•1 day ago
There's nothing in the CBP rule that prohibits importing prescriptions, although there will no longer be a duty exemption for them. The rule is about suspending the 'de minimis' exemption for shipments valued under $800...
hexapus•1 day ago
Starting Oct 22, packages from foreign and Canadian online pharmacies will be prohibited from entering the U.S. if the same medication is sold domestically or if the foreign pharmacy targets U.S. buyers.
telotortium•1 day ago
Source?
loeg•1 day ago
Wasn't that already suspended in, like, 2025?
PaulDavisThe1st•1 day ago
SCOTUS ruled that the executive order that included it was illegal. So it went away, even though they never ruled on the specifics of the de minimis system. Now it is back, under a different EO.
yibg•1 day ago
I believe it had a phased rollout, which impacts all parcels soon.
seemaze•1 day ago
I was charged $46 of import fees on a $137 of art supplies from the Czech Republic this May.
dashmeet•1 day ago
Now is a good time to mention:

costplusdrugs.com

I have no affiliation. If anyone wants a domestic alternative to low cost pharmaceuticals this is a good one. Also sometimes GoodRx is worth checking out. Don’t hesitate to ask a pharmacist for a discount if you’re not using insurance. Sometimes that is the best price.

thelastgallon•about 22 hours ago
mikeweiss•1 day ago
Canadian pharmacies are duct tape for Americas broken health care system. If we rip the tape off first without a fix we're gonna be in trouble.
xethos•about 21 hours ago
Or it means everyone has to deal with just how broken the system is, together, regardless of whether you knew the and could take advantage of the cheap way or not

Not that it'll play out like that, America still has a wealth inequality problem that will insulate some that would otherwise push for a less-broken system. But I'm optimistic by default, and the bright side is more people complaining, loudly, at how broken America's health care system is, and pushing for a fix.

jacobgold•1 day ago
I know very little about this topic, but maybe this ultimately helps force a real solution to our prescription drug cost problem?
thayne•about 24 hours ago
There are so many problems with American healthcare that should have forced a real solution. But nothing much has happened.
amanaplanacanal•about 24 hours ago
I suspect the only thing that would make people demand a better solution is if we got rid of employer paid health care. If everyone had to buy from the exchange, people would freak out.
thayne•about 22 hours ago
The fact your health insurance is tied to your employer is the source of many of the problems.
mikeweiss•1 day ago
But how long would the real solution take if it ever comes and what would the collateral damage be while we wait?
downrightmike•1 day ago
What does this actually mean?
trashface•1 day ago
Various pharmacies in Canada will accept a US prescription and send you the medication via mail, usually at far cheaper than what you would pay for the same in the US.

This prevents it.

CubsFan1060•1 day ago
Interesting. Got some examples of the pharmacies?
burnt-resistor•about 20 hours ago
k12sosse•1 day ago
Okay Kash, you almost got him this time.
motionlessveloc•1 day ago
Means you can no longer legally^W practically buy far cheaper prescription medicines from Canada, Mexico, India, China etc and ship them to the US.

Their own primer on the topic: https://www.personalimportation.org/understand-the-issue

dawnerd•1 day ago
That’s not what it says. It’s still legal. You just have to pay duties. It’s also not just on medication. They shared these rules a while ago too.
BHSPitMonkey•1 day ago
Well... the legal route is no longer "far cheaper" than domestic supply.
matthewdgreen•1 day ago
Canadian pharmacies already pay tariffs. What does this actually change?
actionfromafar•1 day ago
The people in charge betting they only need to count the "red" ballots this time?
Blackthorn•1 day ago
Hasn't it effectively been suspended for over a year now?
pants2•1 day ago
Yes, and it has driven the decline of Temu and Shein
expedition32•about 18 hours ago
It has fuelled Chinese exports to Europe. The enormous industrial capacity of China hasn't gone down they've simply rerouted the cargo ships.
gigel82•1 day ago
This was the case for at least a year. I used to use AliExpress for affordable small electronics, and when this came into effect, it killed the whole thing (and my hobby, because no way I'm paying the Amazon or eBay tax).
MadrasTh0rn•1 day ago
Trump is trying to trade the petro dollar and opec for Venezuelan oil that will tank the dollar and make debt unpayable (every advisor has said this), how he's trying to make medicine unaffordable before alternatives are ready. Sheesh.

Every use case for tarrifs include got subsidy and small trade barriers so it can grow with market share.

Advertisement
mcmcmc•1 day ago
It truly boggles the mind how Trump managed to sell tariffs as anything other than a tax on American consumers
jacobolus•1 day ago
> managed to sell tariffs

He didn't manage to sell them. Everyone hates the tariffs, which are widely understood to have contributed to high prices and economic stagnation.

What he did manage to do is bully the abjectly servile GOP leaders of Congress into not doing anything about the tariffs, even though setting trade policy is expressly assigned to Congress by Article I of the Constitution, and Trump has repeatedly exceeded any legal authority.

mvdtnz•1 day ago
He campaigned and won on tariffs. A plurality of Americans favor them, evidently.
PaulDavisThe1st•1 day ago
We are a country of laws, and the SCOTUS ruled that his first attempt at tariffs was illegal. Whether or not a plurality or majority of Americans favor them is largely irrelevant.
EgregiousCube•1 day ago
Nope, Congress has authorized the executive to impose tariffs multiple times for multiple different reasons. Tariff Act of '30, Trade Expansion Act of '62, Trade Act of '74, etc.
jacobolus•about 22 hours ago
Past congressional actions were premised on an executive acting in good faith, upholding their oath of office, and following Congress's explicit intentions described in the laws you mention.

A situation where a corrupt and incompetent president is explicitly trying to blow up the US economy using not-really-relevant laws as a pretext was not ever anticipated, and he will hopefully be strongly rebuked (e.g. impeached) by the next Congress.

PaulDavisThe1st•1 day ago
SCOTUS ruled that his initial attempts at tariffs were illegal. He's used an entirely different part of the US code to try again (whether it stands is currently unclear; of course, the question of precisely who received the refunds for his previous illegal effort has received astoundingly little attention).

Your comment begins "Nope, Congress has authorized ..." which just supports the point of the GP that it is Congress that controls the setting of tariffs, even if that may sometimes mean delegating it to the executive branch.

porkshoe•1 day ago
He gets away with it because a lot of right-wing elites _love_ the idea of taxing consumption rather than income (or, heaven forbid, wealth).

Additionally, Trump, Hassett, etc are still blaming Biden for inflation caused by the tariffs... and a lot of their base would rather believe that than admit that they got suckered by an obvious scam.

pstuart•1 day ago
A lot of his base believe his lie that the other countries are paying the tariffs.

His followers are literally beyond reason and will accept anything he says. It's so very depressing.

technothrasher•1 day ago
> Trump, Hassett, etc are still blaming Biden for inflation caused by the tariffs

I'm starting to see this backfire with a lot of "personal responsibility" type old-school republicans to whom I talk. They're getting fed up with the administration just blanket blaming anything bad on Biden. Whether that will translate to actual political change, I do not know. But I found it interesting that I'm hearing the frustration more lately.

jeremyjh•1 day ago
Narrator: It did NOT translate to actual political change.
LastTrain•1 day ago
It will not because there are still immigrants and trans people to hate.
ch4s3•1 day ago
Populists of all stripes love tariffs and the illusory promise of autarky. We didn’t see Biden remove any of Trump 1’s tariffs and not a single Democrat in congress has committed to repealing the tariffs.
matteoraso•1 day ago
If that were true, the Republicans would implement a VAT. Trump is legitimately just a moron with a cult of personality.
loeg•1 day ago
He doesn't actually "get away" with it. A lot of people, left and right, are unhappy about tariffs. But for now, he controls the executive, so it is what it is.
mcmcmc•1 day ago
The problem is it was never an executive power to begin with. The unitary executive theory pushed by the Heritage Foundation is counter to everything the US was founded on. Decisions from the current SCOTUS are questionable given the conflicts of interest with certain spouses and the endless improper gifts.
LastTrain•1 day ago
This is entirely in the “rights” control right now, any of them “unhappy” with it are outliers.
porkshoe•1 day ago
It's silly to claim that a lot of people on the right are unhappy about tariffs.

When Obama put a tariff on Chinese tires, right-wingers (correctly) argued that it was a bad idea that caused American consumers to pay almost a million dollars per "job saved" in the tire industry.

Today the right is in control of the executive, the legislative, the judicial, and and far more news media and... basically just crickets.

As for "he controls the executive". Bullshit. When a Democrat is in office, right-wingers remember that the President is not a king.

Please don't "both sides" this extremely one-sided attack on the American worker.

JohnMakin•1 day ago
weird title change.
ChrisArchitect•about 24 hours ago
Related:

U.S. Small Biz Can't Ship to the EU Anymore

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49791246

techmunky•1 day ago
Is this even in CBP's wheelhouse or is this another egregious overreach?
adbachman•1 day ago
this is their thing, yeah.

the C in CBP, "Customs", is specifically this kind of stuff.

cjkaminski•1 day ago
If only it were so simple. Many of CBP's policies are clearly defined by U.S. Congress (most recent example, which actually establishes CBP: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/644/...). That said, Congress appears to have ceded their oversight role by allowing these rules to change without comment.
WarOnPrivacy•1 day ago
> Congress appears to have ceded their oversight role

If there is one most-bipartisan-thing-ever, ceding oversight is it. ex:FastTrack Trade

Someone1234•1 day ago
I flagged this and wanted to explain my reasoning.

At the time of writing, the article states something that its own link doesn't support (i.e. it is inaccurate). CBP hasn't "suspended all personal prescription importation." What they've done is removed De Minimis Exemption (i.e. duty free below $800), and that's it. Meaning you can still important personal medication before and after Oct 22nd, what has changed is that now it is subject to normal duty.

Do I think this is bad for people importing personal medication? Absolutely I do, and I oppose it. However, I don't think misstating the argument is constructive nor warranted. You could make the argument using the facts on the ground, and then re-state that in the thread title.

So the story is worthy of discussion, and interesting (even the personal medication POV). But this link and this title aren't "it." Hopefully we can get a higher quality source and title on this topic.

TheOtherHobbes•1 day ago
It's not as simple as "You will now pay duty." Senders will be required to pay bond, and there will be a crushing load of new paperwork. Combined with extra duty, that will have the same effect as an outright ban.

This will be financially catastrophic for many Americans who may suddenly have to find hundreds of dollars a month.

EgregiousCube•1 day ago
That's standard operating procedure for any non-de-minimis importer. The $800 limit was only imposed in 2016, historically it was a lot lower than that.
fn-mote•1 day ago
VERY difficult to read. It seems almost everything important is hidden in the details somewhere.

I read a lot of it - enjoy reading the butt-covering “legal justifications” written in explaining why there was no public comment period, etc.