No health benefits from breast-feeding
 

according to the IRS

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

:mad2: nuts. absolutely insane.

Seconded.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Obviously the infant formula lobby can kick the living shit out of the breast pump manufacturer's lobby with one arm tied behind its back.

Did you really think this has anything to do with logic and reason, or were you being
(choose all that apply)
a)Rhetorical
b)Ironical
c)sarcastical

This could have been a perfect example of the incentives Clod was talking about in another post.

Hmmm, me thinks the formula industry whispered in their ear.

EDIT: Goddamn it Foot, if only I'd pushed enter sooner.

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.

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.

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?

Breast feeding, I do believe is the ultimate health benefit that millions of babies just aren't getting. If breast pumps were 'incenitfied', then maybe more women would be inclined to do it and then maybe more babies would grow into healthier adults.

I agree. This gets into the same idea as Clodfobble's posts to create incentives for healthy food. Blueberries should be cheap, and ramen noodles should be expensive.

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. :p: