No health benefits from breast-feeding

[monster]

according to the IRS

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/bu...east.html?_r=1

nuts. absolutely insane.

[Shawnee123]

Seconded.

[glatt]

I see their logic. They view breast milk as a healthy food, not medicine. They also won't let you buy a frying pan with your medical flexible spending account money so you can cook up some healthy salmon.

[monster]

But breast-feeding is indicated in reducing the risk of breast cancer.......

[glatt]

Yeah, if it were up to me, I'd include them. It's not like it's going to bankrupt the government. And you buy them at a drug store, not a grocery store. But I agree with their point that breast milk is food, not medicine.

[monster]

But you're not buying the milk. you're buying the apparatus to help you breast feed

[Shawnee123]

Just as buying artificial turf because your kid is allergic to grass. Acupuncture. Swedish Penis Enlarger.

And this (from IRS website Pub 502 for 2009):

Meals
You can include in medical expenses the cost of meals at a hospital or similar institution if a principal reason for being there is to get medical care.

You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of meals that are not part of inpatient care.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by monster

But you're not buying the milk. you're buying the apparatus to help you breast feed

Fish is healthy for you. Should a fishing pole be covered?

I'm not arguing against pumps, because I think they are great, but a pump is there for convenience. The breasts work just fine for delivering the food directly to the baby. The pump is there so the baby can get the same healthy food even if the mom has to be somewhere else.

Other baby convenience items like diapers are not covered.

If breast feeding lowers risks for cancer, then that's a good argument, but then you also need to make sex toys for men be covered, because masturbation lowers risks for prostate cancer. Maybe an old dude just needs his Real Doll to get off.

It's interesting that programs to help you stop smoking are covered, so there is precedence for paying for things that lower your risk of cancer.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Just as buying artificial turf because your kid is allergic to grass. Acupuncture. Swedish Penis Enlarger.

Well I don't know if any of those are actually covered, maybe acupuncture, but there are some interesting things that are covered, like high spf sunscreen.

[monster]

Originally Posted by glatt

Fish is healthy for you. Should a fishing pole be covered?.

Well, is the act of fishing good for you? as in, does it have documented health benefits for the entire group of people who undertake that activity vs those who don't?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by monster

Well, is the act of fishing good for you? as in, does it have documented health benefits for the entire group of people who undertake that activity vs those who don't?

Originally Posted by glatt

If breast feeding lowers risks for cancer, then that's a good argument, but then you also need to make sex toys for men be covered, because masturbation lowers risks for prostate cancer. Maybe an old dude just needs his Real Doll to get off.

[monster]

Originally Posted by glatt

boob cancer vs knob cancer (paraphrase mine)

but remember, we only care about the boobies.

Srsly, i don't have a problem with it. If a doctor will sign off on it as a health benefit, it should be included. Of course there will be crooked doctors who will help people screw the system. but this already happens. Why make nursing working mothers they people who have to pay for that?

[Lamplighter]

Good arguments for paid 3-month maternity leaves and for "Take your baby to work" programs.

Years ago, the science was that the antibodies from the Mom passed to the Baby were only in the colostrum (first milk), so unless the science has changed, I don't see the argument for preventing infections, etc. out to 6 months.

I do think there are psychological benefits of keeping the Mom and Baby together, but sometimes the emotional arguments for breast-feeding sometimes seem to go overboard. e.g., preventing cancer

[monster]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Good arguments for paid 3-month maternity leaves and for "Take your baby to work" programs.

Years ago, the science was that the antibodies from the Mom passed to the Baby were only in the colostrum (first milk), so unless the science has changed, I don't see the argument for preventing infections, etc. out to 6 months.

I do think there are psychological benefits of keeping the Mom and Baby together, but sometimes the emotional arguments for breast-feeding sometimes seem to go overboard. e.g., preventing cancer

yup, your science is a little out of date.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Good arguments for [b]paid[/B....sometimes the emotional arguments for breast-feeding sometimes seem to go overboard. e.g., preventing cancer

Oh Please. Emotional?? Thats underhanded.

READ THIS:

It is estimated that the cumulative
incidence of breast cancer in developed countries would be reduced by more than half, from 6.3 to 2.7 per 100 women by age 70, if women had the average number of births and lifetime duration of breastfeeding that had been prevalent in developing countries until recently. Breastfeeding could account for almost two-thirds of this estimated reduction in breast cancer incidence. The longer women breast feed the more they are protected against breast cancer. The lack of or short lifetime
duration of breastfeeding typical of women in developed countries makes a major contribution to the high incidence of breast cancer in these countries. Beral V et al. “Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 50 302 women with breast cancer and 96 973 women without the disease.” Lancet, Jul 20 2002; 360 (9328): 187-195

Women who breastfed a child for more than 24 months had a 54% reduced risk of developing breast cancer compared with women who breastfed for no more than 6 months. Women who breastfed for at least 73 months over the course of their lives had a much lower risk of breast cancer. The investigators found that the protective effect of breastfeeding applied to a woman's
risk of developing breast cancer both before and after menopause.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by glatt

~snip~
Well I don't know if any of those are actually covered, maybe acupuncture, but there are some interesting things that are covered, like high spf sunscreen.

The astroturf thing was in the article and the acupunture was on the IRS website. The Penis Enlarger was completely a product of my vivid imagination.