• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA to ban affordable inhalers?

1Perry

Banned
Joined
Jun 26, 2011
Messages
7,624
Reaction score
1,859
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Please tell me this is just hyperbole and not really the EPA's position.

Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere.
The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.
The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.
But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.


We couldn't make this other type of inhalers available over the counter? I thought this administrations position was in making health care more affordable.

Obama Administration to Ban Asthma Inhalers Over Environmental Concerns | The Weekly Standard
 
Important Facts.

1) The U.S. is bound by the Montreal treaty, signed in 1987, which has timetables for phasing our a ozone attacking gases called CFC. CFC is used to propel the drug in an inhaler.
2) The FDA mandated the end of most CFC inhalers back in 2008. This article is about a specific type of inhaler for that dispenses epinephrine that is being taken off the market by 2012.
3) The CFC propellant has largely been replaced by another type of gases called HFA in most inhalers.
4) There is no HFA version that dispenses the epinephrine drug. Users will have to switch to an entirely different drug called albuterol.
5) The Pharma industry made a deliberate choice not to develop an HFA epinephrine inhaler back in 2007, even though the FDA pointed out there were no technical barriers.

Its easier to force consumers to buy a new more expensive prescription drug than create an actual replacement. Yet another example of the American public being bent over by the drug industry.
 
Last edited:
Important Facts.

1) The U.S. is bound by the Montreal treaty, signed in 1987, which has timetables for phasing our a ozone attacking gases called CFC. CFC is used to propel the drug in an inhaler.
2) The FDA mandated the end of most CFC inhalers back in 2008. This article is about a specific type of inhaler for that dispenses epinephrine that is being taken off the market by 2012.
3) The CFC propellant has largely been replaced by another type of gases called HFA in most inhalers.
4) There is no HFA version that dispenses the epinephrine drug. Users will have to switch to an entirely different called albuterol.
5) The Pharma industry made a deliberate choice not to develop an HFA epinephrine inhaler back in 2007, even though the FDA pointed out their were no technical barriers.

Its easier to force consumers to buy a new more expensive prescription drug than create an actual replacement. Yet another example of the American public being bent over by drug industry.

So, it sounds to me like a payoff for campaign contributions.
 
So, it sounds to me like a payoff for campaign contributions.

More like collusion among manufactures to avoid creating lower cost replacements. There isn't anything the FDA can when the industry refuses to create a needed drug for extra profits. I doubt anyone was paid off, our system is simply broken.
 
More like collusion among manufactures to avoid creating lower cost replacements. There isn't anything the FDA can when the industry refuses to create a needed drug for extra profits. I doubt anyone was paid off, our system is simply broken.

So again.....this is no way to bring down health care costs. How are we supposed to do that with things like this happening?
 
It was Ronnie Reagan who signed up for this, not President Obama.

From wikipedia...

"...Letter from Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Senate:
"THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release December 21, 1987
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal on September 16, 1987. The report of the Department of State is also enclosed for the information of the Senate.
The Montreal Protocol provides for internationally coordinated control of ozone-depleting substances in order to protect public health and the environment from potential adverse effects of depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Protocol was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program, pursuant to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which was ratified by the United States in August 1986.
In this historic agreement, the international community undertakes cooperative measures to protect a vital global resource. The United States played a leading role in the negotiation of the Protocol. United States ratification is necessary for entry into force and effective implementation of the Protocol. Early ratification by the United States will encourage similar action by other nations whose participation is also essential.
I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Protocol and give its advice and consent to ratification.
Ronald Reagan The White House December 21, 1987" "
 
It was Ronnie Reagan who signed up for this, not President Obama.

Obama just granted waivers for schools. So again, if we are to hold down health care costs, how are we going to do this when we have things like this?
 
This is more about Big Pharm wanting to see this low-cost alternative gone than the ozone or EPA. The same company that makes this has switched the propellant in its more expensive inhaled products but not this one. If they can blame the government for this and make it stick, well that's gravy.
 
It was Ronnie Reagan who signed up for this, not President Obama.

Reagan made the right call. There was a giant hole over Antarctica in the 80's and continued damage to the ozone layer risked UV exposure. The treaty has proved successful in reducing the number of CDC's and tangibly healed the ozone layer.
 
Important Facts.

1) The U.S. is bound by the Montreal treaty, signed in 1987, which has timetables for phasing our a ozone attacking gases called CFC. CFC is used to propel the drug in an inhaler.
2) The FDA mandated the end of most CFC inhalers back in 2008. This article is about a specific type of inhaler for that dispenses epinephrine that is being taken off the market by 2012.
3) The CFC propellant has largely been replaced by another type of gases called HFA in most inhalers.
4) There is no HFA version that dispenses the epinephrine drug. Users will have to switch to an entirely different drug called albuterol.
5) The Pharma industry made a deliberate choice not to develop an HFA epinephrine inhaler back in 2007, even though the FDA pointed out there were no technical barriers.

Its easier to force consumers to buy a new more expensive prescription drug than create an actual replacement. Yet another example of the American public being bent over by the drug industry.

More like, being bent over by the government--BOHICA. This is a government regulation, in case you didn't notice.
 
CFC's are used as propellant, yeah? And each time you use it some is expelled with the medication.

So asthma patients have been getting low doses of CFC's and no one's cared or noticed - until this came up?

This seems quite shocking to me for some reason.
 
More like, being bent over by the government--BOHICA. This is a government regulation, in case you didn't notice.

The alternative inhalers are only more expensive because the companies making them are gouging us.... in case you didn't notice. There's no reason they should be more expensive.

CFCs are heavily restricted for very, very good reason.

CFC's are used as propellant, yeah? And each time you use it some is expelled with the medication.

So asthma patients have been getting low doses of CFC's and no one's cared or noticed - until this came up?

This seems quite shocking to me for some reason.

The chemicals in the inhaler are not considered a (direct) health risk AFAIK.
 
Last edited:
This is more about Big Pharm wanting to see this low-cost alternative gone than the ozone or EPA. The same company that makes this has switched the propellant in its more expensive inhaled products but not this one. If they can blame the government for this and make it stick, well that's gravy.

I actually use an inhaler of this type. And this issue has been a pain in my ass for gears already.

There were originally several manufacturers. Then some interim requirement or temporary stop left shelves empty for like six months, then only primatene returned, and a couple store brand generics that are obviously the same product.

And don't forget. I not only will have to pay more, I also will have to pay a doctor for a prescription.

This is an example of why for-profit healthcare is problematic. Because this is clearly about getting more money out of me. NOT providing better quality.
 
The alternative inhalers are only more expensive because the companies making them are gouging us.... in case you didn't notice. There's no reason they should be more expensive.

CFCs are heavily restricted for very, very good reason.

Because the government told us so? Because of global warming?
 
The alternative inhalers are only more expensive because the companies making them are gouging us.... in case you didn't notice. There's no reason they should be more expensive.

CFCs are heavily restricted for very, very good reason.



The chemicals in the inhaler are not considered a (direct) health risk AFAIK.

It just seems like backwards logic to not be concerned when we're discussing people who have a breathing disorder.
 
Because the government told us so? Because of global warming?

No, not because of global warming and not because "the government" told us so.
 
It just seems like backwards logic to not be concerned when we're discussing people who have a breathing disorder.

You seem to be under the impression that nobody ever bothered to check and see if this was a health risk. They checked.
 
I actually use an inhaler of this type. And this issue has been a pain in my ass for gears already.

There were originally several manufacturers. Then some interim requirement or temporary stop left shelves empty for like six months, then only primatene returned, and a couple store brand generics that are obviously the same product.

And don't forget. I not only will have to pay more, I also will have to pay a doctor for a prescription.

This is an example of why for-profit healthcare is problematic. Because this is clearly about getting more money out of me. NOT providing better quality.

Ever stop to think that it might actually cost more to manufacture the new puffers? Kinda like when the EPA outlawed R12 refigerent and forced us to use 134A, which is three times more expensive.
 
Ever stop to think that it might actually cost more to manufacture the new puffers? Kinda like when the EPA outlawed R12 refigerent and forced us to use 134A, which is three times more expensive.

Ever stop to think it might actually not?
 
No, not because of global warming and not because "the government" told us so.

Right! I guess that why the government outlawed these kinds of puffers.

Weren't you asking me about stupid assed government regulations on another thread recently? There ya go.
 
You seem to be under the impression that nobody ever bothered to check and see if this was a health risk. They checked.

So many things that are bad for you were given a thumbs-up at some point - if the government or big drug companies support something I get suspicious because these both tend to be corrupt and self-serving.
 
I'm going to totally ignore the environmental aspects of this silly EPA edict and jump right to the elephant in the room. WTF? Anyone with asthma who treats it with weak, relatively ineffective epinephrine OTC medications ( Asthma Over-the-Counter (OTC) Treatment Medications and Information on Asthma Management on MedicineNet.com ) is playing Russian roulette with their lives. Almost all asthma patients are on prescription albuterol rescue inhalers. So this epinephrine idiocy will probably affect few real asthma sufferers.

What makes me bolt upright is the thought that if they can do this for an OTC inhaler, what's to stop them from banning albuterol and other rescue inhalers from sufferers of asthma, emphysema, COPD, bronchitus, etc. Since when can the EPA make medical decisions for the entire populace on its own?

Their own logic is astoundingly stupid. Inhalers are not hairsprays that fill the air with noxious fumes. The contents are inhaled directly into the lungs, held there for as long as possible, and exhaled as carbon dioxide (as is every breath one exhales). What kind of roaring incompetents are filling jobs at the EPA anyway? This is assinine... and it has the potential to be deadly. :2mad:
 
I'm going to totally ignore the environmental aspects of this silly EPA edict and jump right to the elephant in the room. WTF? Anyone with asthma who treats it with weak, relatively ineffective epinephrine OTC medications ( Asthma Over-the-Counter (OTC) Treatment Medications and Information on Asthma Management on MedicineNet.com ) is playing Russian roulette with their lives. Almost all asthma patients are on prescription albuterol rescue inhalers. So this epinephrine idiocy will probably affect few real asthma sufferers.

What makes me bolt upright is the thought that if they can do this for an OTC inhaler, what's to stop them from banning albuterol and other rescue inhalers from sufferers of asthma, emphysema, COPD, bronchitus, etc. Since when can the EPA make medical decisions for the entire populace on its own?

Their own logic is astoundingly stupid. Inhalers are not hairsprays that fill the air with noxious fumes. The contents are inhaled directly into the lungs, held there for as long as possible, and exhaled as carbon dioxide (as is every breath one exhales). What kind of roaring incompetents are filling jobs at the EPA anyway? This is assinine... and it has the potential to be deadly. :2mad:

Carbon dioxide has been classified as a poison by the EPA. I guess this newest regulation will bring about the birth of the breath police.
 
Right! I guess that why the government outlawed these kinds of puffers.

Weren't you asking me about stupid assed government regulations on another thread recently? There ya go.

You know, sometimes the government responds to what somebody else tells them.

Like, when the entire scientific community goes "Whoah crap we need to stop using these like pronto."

Are you calling Reagan a "big government" type? He signed the treaty, dude.


You can prove that it doesn't?
You can prove that it does?

So many things that are bad for you were given a thumbs-up at some point - if the government or big drug companies support something I get suspicious because these both tend to be corrupt and self-serving.

So.. you're suspicious of essentially every aspect of modern medicine? Do you have any specific reason to believe that tiny doses of CFCs in an inhaler would have direct health impacts or is it just more of a general "omg it's a chemical" thing?
 
Back
Top Bottom