The EPA Hurts the Poor, Again

by Matt Patterson on October 11, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for The  EPA Hurts the Poor, Again

As a lifelong sufferer of asthma, I have always depended on inhalers to provide me with fast-acting, lifesaving medicine.  Fortunately, I am able to afford expensive prescription inhalers, but many Americans hit hard by the faltering economy are not so lucky.

Until now, however, there has been a cheaper option for low-income families—over-the-counter, epinephrine-based inhalers have helped an estimated 1-2 million people treat their asthma for about $20 per unit (the prescription brands can cost up to 3 times that amount).

But now thanks to our out-of-control federal government, low-income Americans will be denied this over-the-counter relief as of December 31.

The focus of the government’s ire is the fluorocarbons used in the systems of these inhalers.  As MSNBC reported:  “The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer.”

Fine, all well and good that the government wants to protect the ozone layer, but that will come as grim comfort to those whose breath literally depends on cheap inhalers, but whose bank accounts do not allow for the prescription alternative.  Not that the well-off bureaucrats at the EPA would know, but to a poor family, $60 per month is a lot of money—a week’s groceries, a full tank of gas, a new pair of shoes.

The sad irony in all of this is that the American Lung Association (ALA) has vocally backed the EPA’s war on carbon, under the guise that less industrial “polluters” like coal plants will mean less lung diseases—like asthma.  It’s all  a perfect example of well meaning but destructive do-gooderism to target asthma inhalers as a threat to lung health.

It’s almost enough to take your breath away.

Marlo Lewis October 13, 2011 at 10:07 am


I too have had asthma since early childhood. Fortunately my asthma is now so well controlled by Singulair (one tablet before bedtime), that I haven’t needed a fast acting inhaler in quite some time. But the last time I tried the new higher-priced prescription brands, I found they don’t have the same oomph as the older, CFC-powered, devices. The spurt from the new inhalers is so whimpy, it’s hard to tell whether the devices work or not.

Doc Freeman October 15, 2011 at 1:39 pm

This is just another way of more population control. If you are not in perfect health and can work, you will be eliminated. Just like having the 15 panel to approve if you get the procedure done or the new medicine approved in Obamacare.
President Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a “Planetary Regime” that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet — controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
John Holdren co-authored a book regarding the dangers of over population and the potential solutions. Forced abortions, mass sterilization, and a “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens are in the forefront of Holdren’s preferred methods.

The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility”—in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives—using an armed international police force.

President Barack Obama is expected to reverse the “Mexico City policy” soon.
The Mexico City policy prohibits using American tax dollars to fund or promote abortion overseas. Douglas Johnson is with the National Right to Life Committee.
“The effect of President Obama’s order,” says Johnson, “is going to be to put millions of dollars into the hands of organizations that aggressively promote abortion as a population control method overseas.”
Much of the money, he notes, will be spent in Third World countries such as Africa, Latin America, and other developing countries — many of which outlaw abortion

So exactly what is Agenda 21? The following is how the United Nations defines Agenda 21….
The following is language from a UN resolution that was adopted by the UN General Assembly that was designed to further the implementation of Agenda 21….
“….population growth rates have been declining globally, largely as a result of expanded basic education and health care. That trend is projected to lead to a stable world population in the middle of the twenty-first century… The current decline in population growth rates must be further promoted through national and international policies that promote economic development, social development, environmental protection, and poverty eradication, particularly the further expansion of basic education, with full and equal access for girls and women, and health care, including reproductive health care, including both family planning and sexual health, consistent with the report of the International Conference on Population and Development.”
Most Americans don’t grasp it yet, but the truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with population control. In fact, there is a growing consensus among the global elite that they need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of us.
Sadly, this philosophy is now regularly being reflected in official UN documents. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following shocking statement….

Ray Smith October 15, 2011 at 9:20 pm

If I said it once, I said it hundreds of times, when science develops a tracer that can be put into a man made product that has fluorocarbons in it supposingly destroying our environment. Then, send a rocket into space, or the outer atmosphere, capture a sample of the substance, come back and analyze the sample, then tell me how you determine what percentage man put there?

I don’t believe you will find the tracer, nor can one determine what percentage of the sample, represents what nature put there? What I am saying is it’s a guessing game, there is no basis of determining, or concluding that man is causing global warming, on this chemical, found in the atmosphere!

What a dam shame the poor will not be able to purchase this substance to maintain their life cycle. I guess what is next is banning all aerosol products, or sauerkraut, because of the gas we emit?

Sincerely, Ray

Sasha Fellows October 20, 2011 at 10:40 am

I have to agree that this is another method of population control. I have a lung disease that is asbestosis related and require the use of inhalers throughout the day (at night I have Prednisone tablets). These sorts of medications should be freely available to those who require them especially when the illness has been contracted through the fault of the government.

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: