"Imports create competition and keep domestic industry more responsive to consumers. In the United States, we import everything consumers want. So why not pharmaceuticals?"
About this Quote
Grassley’s line is the plainspoken Midwest version of a provocation: if Americans accept foreign goods as a feature of modern life, why do we treat prescription drugs like a sacred exception? The rhetorical move is deliberate. He frames pharmaceutical importation not as a radical break, but as the logical extension of the consumer economy Americans already live in. “We import everything consumers want” is meant to sound like common sense, even inevitability; it smuggles in a populist premise that the market is already global, so protectionism here looks like special pleading.
The intent is pressure politics. By casting imports as “competition” that keeps industry “responsive,” he’s aiming at the price problem without sounding like he’s attacking innovation. It’s a neat reframing: the villain isn’t research and development, it’s insulation. The subtext is that U.S. drug prices aren’t the natural cost of medical progress, but the product of a system designed to limit bargaining power and block outside price discipline. In that light, “why not pharmaceuticals?” becomes an accusation: who benefits from the carve-out?
Context matters because pharmaceuticals are uniquely regulated and uniquely lobbied. Safety, supply-chain integrity, and counterfeit risk are the standard counterarguments; Grassley’s question anticipates them by appealing to consumer normalcy rather than technical policy. It’s also a shot across the bow at both parties’ familiar dance: vow to lower drug costs, then defer to the industry’s claims of complexity. The quote works because it turns complexity into a suspicious exception and forces defenders of the status quo to explain why this one market deserves different rules.
The intent is pressure politics. By casting imports as “competition” that keeps industry “responsive,” he’s aiming at the price problem without sounding like he’s attacking innovation. It’s a neat reframing: the villain isn’t research and development, it’s insulation. The subtext is that U.S. drug prices aren’t the natural cost of medical progress, but the product of a system designed to limit bargaining power and block outside price discipline. In that light, “why not pharmaceuticals?” becomes an accusation: who benefits from the carve-out?
Context matters because pharmaceuticals are uniquely regulated and uniquely lobbied. Safety, supply-chain integrity, and counterfeit risk are the standard counterarguments; Grassley’s question anticipates them by appealing to consumer normalcy rather than technical policy. It’s also a shot across the bow at both parties’ familiar dance: vow to lower drug costs, then defer to the industry’s claims of complexity. The quote works because it turns complexity into a suspicious exception and forces defenders of the status quo to explain why this one market deserves different rules.
Quote Details
| Topic | Business |
|---|
More Quotes by Chuck
Add to List
