Imagine paying $50 for a prescription one month and then hundreds of dollars for that very same medication the next month.
Well, that's what some Americans could face when new U.S.
customs requirements take effect on October 22nd, potentially making it much harder to get lower cost prescription drugs from Canada.
Ken Hunter is the executive director of the campaign for personal prescription importation.
He is going to join us today to explain what's changing, who's at risk, and what it could mean for people already struggling to afford their medication.
Kent, thank you so much for being here today.
We really do appreciate it.
Well, thanks for having me.
On October 22nd, the US Customs and Border Protection Agency is implementing a brand new rule that will effectively eliminate the ability of consumers to buy their prescription medications from other countries.
And the reason why this is important, people buy from different countries because the price can be significantly lower versus what they would pay at a US pharmacy.
have many people such as senior citizens, people on fixed incomes, people that also have high deductible health insurance plans, or uninsured that will now be priced out of the market of buying, being able to buy their pharmaceuticals.
And the cost can be significant.
You know, this isn't just a, you know, $15, $20 a month increase.
We're talking hundreds of dollars, maybe thousands of dollars a month.
So for somebody
Let's say a senior citizen that may take four prescription medications, multiply that $700 price increase that they're about to face over those four or five prescriptions, they won't be able to afford that.
In other countries, there are typically policies where the pharmaceutical company, if they want access to the customers in that country, will have price limitations of what they can charge.
So in Canada, there will be limitations on drugs, for instance, like eloquence, which is commonly used to help prevent blood clots.
That'll be a product that people could get in Canada for roughly about half the cost of what it would, you know, be if they went to a US pharmacy to purchase it.
And so when you look at that, you're talking for a three month supply for a typical patient, they may pay like $560 for that from Canada and from the US, it's going to be over $1,000.
And that's one of the common ones, but you can also see for a drug that prevents blood clots, it is pretty much necessary for that person's health.
I am not sure what the purpose of this rule is for.
Now, when you read through the code, it's purportedly to help prevent the flow of illegal narcotics into the US like fentanyl, but also to collect more accurate tariffs on what people are buying from other countries.
So when a person in the US buys a drug from Canada, they're going to
not just get a lower price, but they're also going to have a tariff that they'll have to pay on it.
And even with that, it's going to be a much less expensive price than them buying it in the US.
So this rule is not only going to prevent the country from collecting additional tariff fees, but it's going to put people's health at risk.
And that's why we've been asking the administration to either pause this rule or to exempt personal pharmaceuticals from it.
Yes, Mark Pokan, a representative from Wisconsin, was one of the leaders of creating a letter that 71 Democrat members of the House signed, asking for this rule specifically to be paused or dropped.
On the Republican side, there were three Florida House members that signed a similar kind of bill.
And what we're asking
consumers to do is put pressure on Congress who can then put pressure on the administration to pause this rule.
One of the best things that somebody could do is write to their senators, Ron Johnson, Tammy Baldwin, and ask them to participate in this effort to stop this damaging rule from taking effect.
He is the executive director of the campaign for personal prescription importation.
We are discussing how a new US customs requirement that takes effect on October 22nd could change how people are getting their prescription medications and how much they would actually pay.
Now, Ken, you've talked a little bit about the cost that people would incur because of this change.
What are you actually hearing from people who depend on these medications and what happens if they suddenly just can't afford them?
Our organization has about 175,000 members and it climbs every single day by you know several thousand typically as word gets out about this more and more people start to realize what they're facing so within this there aren't a lot of options that people will have once the time comes where you know the drug their drug access is cut off from other countries and you know kind of to
To answer your question a bit more, what somebody might have to do is stock up now if they're able to get their pharmacist or their personal doctor to go and give them an additional prescription, but try to get the drugs into your mailbox by October 22nd.
Son,
sure.
Did I answer your question as much as you needed?
I appreciate that because I think, you know, when rules are changing this rapidly and nobody really understands why the rules are actually changing, I'm not sure there are many more options than that, right?
You just, you have to make sure that you're asking the right questions and asking your doctor.
Now, um, this administration says that it's working to lower prescription drug prices while the, this new customs policy could actually make lower cost medications harder to obtain.
Those two things don't reconcile with my brain when I hear them, when I say them out loud and when I read them.
So can you explain what that means exactly and how we can actually reconcile that?
Yes.
Well, President Trump has come out as being pro-importation from Canada.
in the past.
If you remember when the state of Florida was trying to set up their program, he was very much in support of it.
You know, specifically calling out the fact that the drugs are less costly in Canada.
So I would say he's in support of this.
I would also
Wonder if of all the millions of rules that are proposed within the government, if this is something that's hit the radar in the White House.
Now, I know there have been some media reports that have just in the past day or so gotten some comments from the White House on this.
And what they have said is, you know, stating that the president has done a lot of work so far to lower the cost of prescription medication in the United States.
And you could say in an aggregate, that's potentially true.
However, there are only specific drugs that are really focused on by the administration with, for instance, their most favored nation drug rules.
You may have, for instance, that senior citizen that is on eloquence that prevents blood thinners, I mean, that's a blood thinner that prevents clots, may not be able to get a lower cost version of that in the United States.
The patent on it is for a couple of more years, so they would have to buy brand name eloquence at full retail price in the US.
For their dosage, they may not have that option except if they wanted to pay a tremendous amount more per month in the US to buy it.
If they go to Canada, they have the option of being able to get generic eloquence, which first of all, that's one area where they could save money.
But some patients do require the actual brand name drug because that works most effective for them.
So buying it from Canada is going to be at roughly half the price of buying it in the United States.
So when you look at somebody who might be on the $2,000 a month social security benefit, there isn't much wiggle room in there to all of a sudden decide, yeah, I can afford another several hundred dollars to several thousand dollars per month.
So even though the administration has done some work,
towards this and their mind may be in the correct spot on this.
I don't believe that this rule goes and plays out for what President Trump is really trying to do.
This is a solution that's available right now for people.
We don't need to wait for factories to be built in the U.S.
to go and manufacture more pharmaceuticals, etc.
You can get your medicines today.
And that's what's being cut off and there's really no need for it to be.
And that's why I wonder is this something that the president may not even know about because it sounds to me like it goes against what his philosophy is on this.
And Ken, finally, and we've alluded to this just a little bit as we've been chatting here this morning, but here in Wisconsin, we don't have an exact count of how many residents are purchasing their medications from Canada.
What we do know is that people are struggling with their prescription costs and they support getting their medications from Canada.
So if you were talking to people in Wisconsin or across the country, what is the first thing that you would tell them that they should be doing right this very minute as they prepare for this October 22nd deadline?
One of the things they should do right away is talk to their doctor to get a prescription for their medication and try to get it filled from the pharmacy ASAP.
The drugs need to be in their mailbox by October 22nd to not be subject to this rule should it go forward as planned.
So that's the immediate thing that I would advise to anybody.
Also, many physicians are very aware of how people are struggling to afford medications.
And they very much work with you on, is there a different type of medication you can take?
Is there a generic, another one to try?
I would say for somebody that's also facing the situation of being cut off,
Talk with your doctor, see if there are alternatives that you may be able to try that could be effective.
However, that being said, many people have already gone down that road with their physicians and they know what drugs will work for them specifically and for their metabolism.
So people are really stuck at the point now of having to perhaps stock up.
Or if this rule goes into effect as planned, they may need to travel.
to another country to personally pick up prescriptions.
But when you think about it, you can only order a 90-day supply at a time.
So for somebody, especially a senior who may not be very mobile, they can't be expected to drive across the border to Canada multiple times a year.
And even if they were able to, think of that additional cost.
So that's why we've been telling people
talk to your doctors, get a prescription and try to stock up in case it's a prolonged battle to go and get this rule paused or overturned.
He is the executive director of the campaign for personal prescription importation.
Ken, thank you so much for joining us and shedding some light on what this new rule change could actually mean coming up on October 22nd.
It's approaching.
We're going to keep an eye on it.
We're going to see what happens next.
And for people who depend on these medications, this is about a lot more than just saving money.
It's about being able to afford prescriptions that they absolutely need.
For more stories and issues from all around Wisconsin, visit civicmedia.us.
Find out more at civicmedia.us or connect with us on Facebook, Instagram, and all of our socials.
Stay with us.
We'll be right back.
Welcome to the Civic Media Spotlight.
I'm Dominic Lee, and we are thrilled you're tuning in today.
We've got a lot of ground to cover, so let's get right into it.
Two proposed high-voltage transmission lines in Wisconsin are raising concerns about private property rights, environmental impacts, and regulatory oversight.
State Representative Tony Kurtz, who represents Wisconsin's 41st Assembly District, recently called for greater scrutiny on the proposed Becky Project and the exemptions that its developer is seeking from state regulators.
He joins us now to discuss those concerns and what he believes needs to happen next.
Good morning, Representative.
How are you today?
Good morning, Jamie.
Thank you for having me on on this very important and important issue that affects a lot of people.
It really, really does.
And we're going to just jump right in because you recently published an editorial that raises concerns about the Becky Transmission Project and those regulatory exemptions that its developer is requesting.
So let's just start there.
What concerns you most about those requests?
well just for a background for all your wonderful listeners uh... basically mgs that's the company that is overseeing this project that won the contract uh... they're not they're not based in wisconsin they're not a a consider to wisconsin utility they don't have that status and so they're asking for that status through the public service commission but the interesting part of that is there literally asking for
There's almost 30 different exemptions from current law.
So basically, you know, they want to come into Wisconsin.
They want to build this, but yet they don't want to follow the rules that all our utilities in the state of Wisconsin has to follow.
I have a problem with that.
I would hope my constituents would have a problem with that.
And I just think when this comes up, there is a docket number.
It has not necessarily come up in front of the PSC yet, but when it does,
I guess my point to my constituents, to everybody that's involved is you need to pay attention to this because this is just another opportunity to voice your concerns that, you know, this outside developer wants to come into Wisconsin, wants to build the largest power line that will ever go through the state of Wisconsin, but yet they don't want to play by the same rules that our existing utilities have to follow.
I have a problem with that.
and I am pretty confident others have the same issues.
Because it could be your backyard next.
And so Jamie, I'm glad you bring that up because
this would set basically a new standard that any company in the united states could bid on projects and that was and we can get in the ropher deal later the right reverse refusal which is something that unfortunately failed did not get in the senate but that's another whole story but anyway uh... back to the original thing the fact of matter is they if they set this new standard by giving them an outside organization uh... all these different exemptions then then the point is
Others are going to ask for the same thing and and you bring up at the good point because a lot of my colleagues They're not necessarily paying attention to this because it doesn't affect their district To your point is if we open Pandora's box on this It basically allows any other company to come into Wisconsin ask for these same type of exemptions and it could be their district next
And I think that's where they do need to start paying attention because if we allow it for this company, others are going to ask for the same status.
And that to me is problematic as you move forward because once again, it could be their backyard next.
just i i think to articulate their concerns uh... and i go back to what i just said a minute ago this will be the largest transmission line to ever be built in the state of wisconsin and then so to one ask for all these exemptions i i think is really uh... unfair to existing wisconsin utilities but then
Some of the oversight that they will give away, when I say give away, the PSC will say, okay, there's certain things that they basically are going to trust the company to follow.
That's where I, once again, where a Wisconsin company has to follow those rules, have to answer the Public Service Commission.
You know, this other company is asking for these type of exemptions where they're not going to have certain reporting requirements, certain other requirements that other utilities in the state of Wisconsin has to follow.
And to your point, it's going to open up very bad presidents that if you're going to allow this company to do it, then of course others are going to ask for the same type of status.
He represents Wisconsin's 41st Assembly District.
We're discussing the proposed Becky transmission line concerns over regulatory oversight and what comes next for the project.
To piggyback off that last question, Representative Kurtz, would you support changes to Wisconsin law if that current regulatory process doesn't actually provide the oversight that's being called for right
now?
Yes, I mean, if you look at my assembly district, this line runs smack dab through the middle of it.
And I owe it to my constituents because the fact of the matter is I haven't had one constituent that is in favor of this.
So I owe it to my constituents too.
Yeah, absolutely.
There's some regulatory fix, which I'm not...
I hope we don't have to go to that extreme, but if we do, we do.
I go back to, I think there's other ways to do this line.
I know some people still don't like the idea, one, do we need the line?
The fact of the matter is, it's no different than our roads and our bridges.
They have to get periodically upgraded and rebuilt.
The transmission lines are very similar to that.
The proposed Becky transmission line continues to raise questions about regulatory oversight, public accountability, and its potential impact on Wisconsin communities.
We're going to continue to follow this story and the next steps in the process.
For more Wisconsin news and updates, visit civicmedia.us.
All right, welcome back to what's going on with Earl Ingram.
As always, it is always great to have an opportunity to come before you, the listening audience, and always even better.
when I can share this platform with my good friend, Sandy Williams.
Sandy Williams really needs no introduction for those of you who've been around a while.
But I'll just say he's a great economist.
He's a guy that if I start talking about all his accomplishments, it would fill the entirety of this hour.
And we've got too many things that...
critically important to talk about.
It's been a while, but good morning to you, my friend.
How you doing?
Well, well, it's kind of been the same way for me, but it's good to be back in the saddle with you again.
And, you know, we know for sure it's not going to be so long the next time I've been assured.
of that so got a lot to talk about sandy things are going on uh that i think the average person is struggling to understand you know you you you are a man who is very well informed about the economy how it works more so than the average person but here we are sandy and the average american
is just wondering what happened.
Things are just so difficult and they don't seem to be getting better.
They just, and so it's like we're swimming upstream and there's an economy that's booming.
And so help us understand how,
that contradiction can can be taking place and the economy is booming the way it is and yet the American people are struggling to put food on the table.
Well as the segments of the economy are booming and if you those segments of the economy are booming to such an extent that when you average them into the rest the numbers all seem very good but when you when you
unbundle it and you look at the compartments of the economy and what's doing well and what isn't and how various segments are going, it's kind of troublesome.
And it's particularly troublesome for Tom, Dick and Mary.
for a long time now, you know, we've had a stock market that's soaring, but the number of the percentage of the US population that actually shares in the prosperity created by the stock market is very, very small.
And so we've got this seeming bellwether of economic strength, the stock market, which has been booming for quite a long time.
And yet the people who are sharing in that wealth experience is relatively small.
And it doesn't affect Tom Dick and Mary's daily
cash flow, for instance.
And so we're finding that families now even rising all the way up to the level of $300,000 a year, a significant percentage of families at that level of income report that they're living paycheck to paycheck, meaning they aren't really saving money, they're spending all the money they have, they're feeling financial constraints.
Well, if that's happening at the $300,000 level, which is way above the median income in this country, just think what's happening to the median income families.
In Wisconsin, last year, the median income was about $75,000 a year.
What is median income?
That's the level of income that half of the people, up to half of the people are at or under, okay?
So in Wisconsin, if the $75,000
number is the median income.
That means that half of the income earners in Wisconsin earn less than 75,000 and half earn more.
And so that's the same kind of ratio that's occurring in the country.
Maybe the national median income might be a little higher than Wisconsin's.
It might be 80,000, but it's well off of that 300,000 bogey where people are living paycheck to paycheck.
So if you ask people
whether they're booming or not, and if they're living paycheck to paycheck, their answer will be no, we're not.
Sandy, $75,000 in 2026 is, it seems, it appears to be almost a negative
actually some of it's related to the weakness in the economy But for instance recently there's been a fair amount of publicity about how the the federal
Treasury instruments with maturities of 10 years, the so-called 10-year Treasury bond yield, has gone up to 5.6%, which is at a high for over a decade.
That's the highest level we've had.
And so why is that happening?
Well, there's a whole bunch of reasons for why it's happening, and it sort of ties together a whole bunch of economic factors going on in the economy.
First of all, just to be simple about it, if you're going to lend somebody some money and you're going to charge them interest for it, well, how will you figure out how much interest you should charge on the money?
Well, one of the things you need to do if you lend someone money and they're going to pay it back to you in, let's say, five years is you need to make sure that the money they pay back to you in five years is worth as much as the money you lent them today.
And that's a function of inflation.
Inflation is essentially the rate at which a dollar loses its value.
So if a dollar inflates by 2% a year, that really means that next year it takes a dollar and two cents to buy what a dollar could buy today.
And so if you're going to lend someone money for over a period of time, the first thing you want to know is how much inflation is there going to be?
Because I need to charge an interest rate that is at least as high
as the inflation rate so that the money I get back from this person is as valuable as the money I lent to them.
A second factor is how risky is this investment?
If I lend this person a dollar, what are the odds that I'm going to get paid back any of the money at all?
Or am I going to get paid back a hundred cents on the dollar by the borrower?
So that's the risk component.
And then a third component of it is
How else can I put this money to work?
And what can I earn on this money if I do something with it other than lending it to this person?
And that's sort of the opportunity cost of lending the money.
And there are other factors as well.
For instance, how much demand is there for my money?
If lots of people are coming to me and saying, I want to borrow money from you, I'm in a position to charge more money for it, a more interest for it.
And all of that is going on right now.
So the level of inflation seems to be going up, and the predicted levels of inflation seem to be that it's going to be sticky, that it's going to continue to be at a higher level.
That means you need to charge more interest to the borrower, meaning in this case, the federal government.
If the federal government wants to borrow money on a 10-year basis, you're going to want to
get more money back from them because of the interest rate, the inflation rate that you're projecting.
A second issue is how much money is being borrowed today?
Well, in today's world, there's a great deal of corporate debt that's where corporations are borrowing money.
Why are they borrowing it?
Well, the biggest borrowing segment is the artificial intelligence segment, which is building out things at such a rapid rate.
And so there's
more borrowers competing to borrow money with the federal government, that's causing the rate of interest to go up for the federal government.
And then, of course, there's an added level of risk with the federal government because it seems to have an unbridled appetite for spending money that it doesn't have.
The deficit projected for this year, the federal deficit and the budget is projected to be
$2.1 trillion, which is record breaking for a time period in which there is no recession.
There's no reason, there's no policy reason to be running a deficit.
It's just that the United States currently, with its political processes, seems to have a voracious appetite for spending money that it isn't taxing.
In particular, the government in question today's administration reduces taxes but continues to spend money at the same rapid clip.
We have a $2.1 trillion deficit.
We have a $40 trillion plus national debt, which is growing now at a rate of $2 trillion a year.
this kind of projection causes those who are lending money to the United States to become more uncertain about the credit worthiness of the United States and its capacity to pay back dollars that will be worth as much as the dollars that were lent to it.
And so this higher interest rate on 10-year maturity treasuries spills over into our economy immediately.
For instance,
The interest rate on mortgages has gone up.
It's gone up almost a percentage point in the last month and a half.
And that is slowing down the rate at which people can buy housing.
It's reducing the value of housing.
It's reducing the value of commercial real estate.
So there's broad implications, all of which affect not just the sectors, not just the federal government and its cost of borrowing money, which incidentally, the interest rate bill for
this year because of the size of our debt and the increasing rate on which we're paying interest is a trillion dollars.
So we're paying a trillion dollars of interest this year in the federal budget to just carry the debt and it's going
up.
You know, Sandy, I was reading this article in Money Watch yesterday in prior to
conversation this morning and I was trying to understand as an average American citizen where we fit in this and the article, a couple paragraphs and let you explain this.
I want you to explain this to us.
American workers share of the economic pie has fallen to its lowest level since at least 1947 when the federal government began tracking the data
according to analysis by the Federal Reserve Economist.
The measure known as labor share of income tracks how much of the nation's economic output flows to workers in the form of wages and salaries, as opposed to the share that goes to investors and corporations through profits, dividends, and other capital income.
A shrinking labor share of income indicates the more economic gains of flowing to shareholders and business owners rather than to workers.
As of early 2026, American workers received 54.1% of the national income according to research from Federal Reserve Bank of New York by comparison that figure top 65%.
almost 80 years ago when the government began tracking the data following World War II.
In early 2020, it stood at 57.7 indicating that workers have continued to lose ground since the pandemic.
So if I'm reading you right and listening to what you are saying, and I have no reason not to,
Believe what it is you are saying, and I'm reading this information that this just almost appears that this debt that continues to grow from our nation.
There's not going to be any room for the people themselves.
We're not the ones who are borrowing the money send.
The amount of money being borrowed on credit cards continues to go up.
People are pinched.
That's because we're pinched, Sandy, right?
We're pinched, exactly, yes.
And so, like I was saying, the architecture of our economy has changed a great deal.
We have fewer manufacturing jobs.
We have many more companies whose business models are built on using hourly employees, the fast food industry, much of the hospitality industry.
We've turned into a service industry economy, which is much different than a manufacturing economy, which we were in the 1960s and 50s and early 70s.
So the architecture of the economy has changed.
We have fewer people who are working in manufacturing or otherwise working in blue collar jobs that permit them to be
in the middle class.
And the definition of the middle class has probably become a little bit underestimated in terms of what it takes to be in a comfortable middle class.
When we look at what it takes to live in some manner that isn't just paycheck to paycheck, we realize that it takes more than the median income to get there.
It used to be that the median income was a middle class income, and it permitted people to live comfortably and not paycheck to paycheck.
But in the new world, the median income ends up being an inadequate income, and it probably is only in the lowest end of the middle class in terms of if you measure the middle class by financial security and financial comfort.
We've also shifted the way in which we put the burden of benefits that used to be borne by the employer so that health care, the benefit of health care used to be.
given with almost no deductible, no contribution from the employee.
Now, healthcare, even when it's provided by the employer, comes with a significant cost burden to the employee to bear the cost of healthcare.
Some of that has to do with how broken our healthcare system is and how expensive it is on a relative basis in the world.
And then also retirement benefits.
which are now also borne by employees, materially with 401ks, rather than having an employment pension plan in which the pension is basically caused by the contribution from the employer.
So, you know, we've changed the way things are designed for the worker, and all of those changes in design have put an added pinch on the worker.
And now we've got a shoe that might be falling in the future, this artificial intelligence process, which promises to substantially increase the productivity of certain kinds of workers.
And of course, increasing productivity sounds great, particularly from the employer standpoint.
But when you increase the productivity of workers in a significant fashion, and you don't increase the amount of work that needs to get done by those workers, you end up reducing the number of workers that are required to accomplish the works.
So, Sam, this has happened without the worker not being aware that these things have changed.
Well, you know, that's the way things are.
I mean, things tend to change
In a manner that is kind of creeping change creeping change like it's a bit like being I've never been this but I think it's to hear it to the story told it's a bit like being the frog in the cold water He's turned on and you don't perceive the heat is how hot you're getting until the water boils and it's too late and I think that
That's sort of what happens to all of us.
We end up in a situation of creeping change.
We live day to day, month to month, week to week.
And in those time periods, the changes are harder to perceive.
But when we look backwards in time and we look backwards over four or five years, we can perceive that there has been a material change in the five or 10 year perspective.
We can get looking backwards.
It's much harder
to prognosticate what that change is going to look like five and 10 years in the future.
But the current trends
And then the current unveiling of this AI process leads many people to believe, particularly young people to believe that the future, the changes that are going to occur in the next five to 10 years could be much more significant than the ones they've realized in the past, particularly as it relates to them.
And we can talk about it later in the show, but I think the impact of AI is going to be materially affected in the service economy.
It's going to be materially affected
the effect of it is going to be materially felt by college graduates, the people who have gone to school, paid the money to go to school in order to obtain white collar jobs.
And unlike productivity increases in the past where robotic manufacturing promised to decrease the number of manufacturing jobs, the impact of AI is pretty much prognosticated to have its biggest impact on white collar jobs.
So Sandy, before we...
get there, I want to go back to where the average every day, Tom, Mary and Dick and see themselves.
When you pointed out the amount of money that is being borrowed and amount of money that's, that's old and, and this is not going to disappear.
This is a serious problem that has to be taken on by our government and reeled in at some way, shape or form, isn't it?
I mean, we can't just keep letting
No, we can't.
And, you know, it's a tightrope dance because obviously what becomes a matter of concern is the size of our...
annual national budget deficit and the size of our national debt, which is the compilation of all of our deficits that are currently remain unpaid.
How that relates to the size of our gross domestic product, which is essentially the size of our economy.
And when the percentage
relationship between our national deficit, annual national deficit.
And when the percentage relationship between our national debt becomes too high as it relates to our gross domestic product, i.e.
the size of our economy, it becomes untenable.
It becomes unsustainable.
It's just like a family having too much debt.
having a mortgage that is too big for them to bear.
They can't afford the house they live in because the debt burden is too great as compared to their annual income.
All
right,
friend.
Yeah, always.
We'll see you in a week.
Yep.
Absolutely.
All right.
That's one and only Sandy Williams.
That's a wrap for what's going on with Earl Ingram.
See you all later.