No health benefits from breast-feeding

[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?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by monster

If a doctor will sign off on it as a health benefit, it should be included.

And I think that's the bottom line. I would agree wholeheartedly with that. Whatever "it" is.

[monster]

Originally Posted by glatt

And I think that's the bottom line. I would agree wholeheartedly with that. Whatever "it" is.

right. I seriously doubt many doctors would refuse to sign off on a breast pump regardless of whether the health reasons were dietary or otherwise or the benefits for mother or baby or both. Unfortunately, this is a sensible solution.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by monster

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.

Even if every doctor signed off on every pump, it wouldn't amount to jack shit for the government's coffers, whereas it could be a significant help for the pumper.
But more than that, it would be the right thing for the IRS to do.

[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.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

Oh Please. Emotional?? Thats underhanded.

No, just outdated. But he admitted that himself.

[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.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

....The Penis Enlarger was completely a product of my vivid imagination. ....

Oh...give it time. And Viagra will make it on the list, too.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

Oh...give it time. And Viagra will make it on the list, too.

It probably is covered under "drugs" but at least in this case, unlike most medical insurance, it does not then exclude birth control. [/end serious part]

[begin sarcastical part] Hey, a guy needs to get his rocks off. It's healthier for society, so they don't go on rampages and stuff (you don't believe that, do you guys? That you're such animals? Yeah, i don't either.)

Anyhoo, it's only about the pumps. I think women could do without them, as a medical supply. Just squeeze boobehs really hard into a large bowl then, using a funnel, transfer milk to an old water bottle. If you can't afford a funnel you can use a SNANK bag. Water bottles can be found in your nearby landfill.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Just squeeze boobehs really hard

If only it were that simple. For most women it isn't. I got lucky, 'cause that breastpumping thing aint a whole wheelbarrow load of joy in my experience.

Maybe doctors should only sign off on things that hurt a whole shitload. 'Cause then we know they're good for you....?