Breast pumps boom under Obamacare coverage; lactation consultants also free

Breast pump makers are having a hard time keeping pumps on the shelves thanks to a small provision in President Obama’s healthcare act, which took effect Jan.1, that requires insurance companies to cover breast pumps at no cost to the patient.

The provision also covers visits to lactation consultants at no cost to the patient! (Hooray!)

From The Washington Post:

“We’re getting a lot of calls from prospective mothers and new mothers,” said Bruce Frishman, president of New Hampshire Pharmacy and Medical Equipment, a  supplier based in the District. “We’ve started stocking a lot more pumps that would be purchased through insurance.”

“Yummy Mummy, a New York boutique that specializes in breast pumps and accessories, is in the process of acquiring a warehouse and call center to accommodate the increased demand.”

“I have three employees taking calls right now,” owner Amanda Cole said. “We’re still in the stage where we’re figuring out how to add fax machines and phone lines. It’s all very new to us.”…

“The government does not bear the costs of providing breast pumps. Instead, insurers will have to pay for the new benefit, likely with a slight increase to the premiums they charge their members.

“Administrators of insurance plans still have questions about how to best implement the rule. No state has ever required insurance companies to cover the benefit, although Louisiana did convene a study panel on the issue in 2002, according to the National Center for State Legislatures.”

(There are lots of ins and outs on this law and how insurance companies are handling it so please read the full story on The Washington Post site if you’re a mom who may be able to take advantage of these benefits.)

The law does not specify whether insurance companies must cover certain brands or types of pumps. It only states that health plans should pay for “the costs of renting breastfeeding equipment” in conjunction with each birth.

But the rental pumps are often larger and more expensive so some insurance companies like UnitedHealthcare are offering women the option of buying a personal pump instead.

The article states that insurance companies are now recruiting lactation consultants to join their networks so they can abide by the law and cover their customers who need lactation help.

However, many lactation consultants don’t want to be covered by insurance because the payouts tend to be less than what they would normally charge.

You all know that I am huge supporter of women nursing when possible, and I am so glad this law helps women establish their breastfeeding with free (but invaluable) lactation support!

While nursing my three babies, I made many calls to Piedmont Hospital’s lactation consultant Julie Duncan. She was wonderful to have in your corner, but had Piedmont not provided her help for free I don’t think I could have afforded her help. I am glad that women won’t have to make that choice and can get assistance when they need it.

And by providing breast pumps, mothers can return to work and continue providing milk to their babies (and not have their breasts get infected if they suddenly stopped nursing).

Have you gotten your free breast pump yet? Has your insurance covered your lactation consultation? Did you know you had a right to these things? Will you use these benefits in the future?

Do you think these two items will increase the rate of breastfeeding and the percent of women who stay with it?

Are you outraged and don’t think insurance should cover lactation consultants or breast pumps?

55 comments Add your comment

Karia

January 7th, 2013
2:36 am

“Free”–that’s a misnomer. We’re with United Healthcare and saw a HUGE increase in our deductibles, copayments and monthly rate this year. So I’m paying for your “free” breast pump. I’m a big advocate of breastfeeding–nursed all three of my kids, one until he was 3. I had a “right to a breast pump” even then–it was called “buying it yourself”. And I managed to do so even though we’re not rich by any means. This is just another of the dozens of ways big, bloated Obamacare’s “provisions” end up making all of us pay. I wonder how many of these “free” pumps will end up being sold on Craigslist for beer money?

lexi3

January 7th, 2013
3:12 am

I second Karia’s opinion. There is no such thing as a free lunch at any age. The costs have simply been shifted to payers of premiums and taxpayers and magnified, as is the inescapable wont of everything a government bureaucracy does.

It’s also a typically stupid use of scarce resources. A fundamental principle of real insurance (which Obamacare isn’t) in a world of scarce resources is that you guard against catastrophic losses first, and you self insure (through deductibles, co-pays and the like) for the smaller “losses.” While the benefit sounds nice, especially to people used to not paying their own bills, it is a glorious vote buying gambit. Frankly, if you cannot afford a breast pump you cannot afford the infant and should refrain from reproducing at someone else’s expense. Perhaps the skyrocketing rates of illegitimacy would decline if we didn’t provide some many financial incentives for unwed mothers to have kids they can’t afford.

Aquagirl

January 7th, 2013
6:47 am

A fundamental principle of real insurance

…is for insurance companies to encourage prevention instead of paying for a resultant catastrophe. This is one of the failures of our healthcare system. It makes no financial sense for a company to invest in long-term preventative care. Breastfeeding is one of those things, and I’d rather my insurance pay for a lactation consultant than two or three doctors visits for ear infections.

United Healthcare may not be on the hook when that 14 year old makes his/her 10th trip to the ER for asthma but you can bet somebody will pay.

Also, if you’re thinking women will have more children so they can get free breast pumps and lactation consultants, you might be insane.

motherjanegoose

January 7th, 2013
6:48 am

When I breastfed initially, 25 years ago, I used a manual pump …like a syringe. That was what we could afford. I believe I bought it the drug store. A friend loaned me a battery operated one but I did not like it. Used it again for our daughter five years later.

Air, sunshine, snow and rain are free. Breastpumps? Not sure.

Momcat

January 7th, 2013
7:32 am

What a waste of money. Breast pumps are very valuable for a short intervals of time. Increasing mix supply, going back to work, pumping the occasional bottle for the sitter so mom can catch a movie. Mine sat dormant for months…With occasional usage. The times I used it I loved it. What a waste for tax payers and insurance providers.

And some anectdotal info…. Many of my friends breast fed exclusively. Kids still got sick. It is best but not a magic bullet.

Roni

January 7th, 2013
7:58 am

I’m on the fence on this one. My breast pump was the only way my son could receive breast milk due to being born with a lip/gum abnormality that made latching impossible. However, when mixed in with all other newborn expenses, they aren’t THAT expensive, and for insurance to cover them seems great only if there are no increases in fees to balance it out. They simply aren’t a necessity. Also, many women can’t breastfeed at all for multitudes of reasons and covering pumps while not covering formula smacks of unfairness and judgment. Either all forms of feeding should be covered/supported or none.

Voice of Reason

January 7th, 2013
8:21 am

Lactation Consultants = Boob Nazis

Those A-holes made my wife feel like complete crap and less of a woman when she couldn’t breast feed after our daughter was born. So much so that she didn’t even bother when our son was born.

DebDoes

January 7th, 2013
8:31 am

Voice of reason you are a caveman….go back there! She was with the wrong consultant and should have sought other help or consolation. Yeah for breast pumps.

Voice of Reason

January 7th, 2013
8:51 am

@DebDoes

She was with the consultant provided to her by Northside Hospital. How exactly am I a caveman? Is it because my experience goes against your love of Boob Nazism? Sorry, but that’s what actually happened.

Maybe they work for some women, and great if they do, but in my wife’s experience, they failed miserably. No follow-up, and they acted like they had better things to do while they were in the room, and they tried to rush my wife through it even when she had questions. I’m sorry but my experience with a so-called “lactation consultant” was a lesson in humility I wouldn’t want any woman to experience.

...

January 7th, 2013
8:55 am

I’m due the middle of March, and I just bought my own breast pump. Yep, it was $300, but I didn’t have insurance pay for the first breast pump, and I don’t need them to pay for it now. There are some things we need to held accountable for. I’m not so certain I agree with insurance covering breast pumps. Insurance isn’t there to cover EVERYTHING. I haven’t seen my companies premium increases yet this year, but I’m sure it’s sickening. Obamacare, is just one more step to putting us closer to socialized medicine, which we all know isn’t good for anyone.

GA_Observer

January 7th, 2013
9:01 am

Next thing they’ll want me to pay for their ‘free’ nail clippers, combs, socks, infant carriers – all great ideas that promote health and safety for those with newborns. Y’all are going to have to draw a line, it’s not the function of ‘insurance’ (actually this isn’t even insurance but a spread-the-wealth initiative) to provide every accouterment you decide a Mom needs. I’ve got to provide birth control, food, shelter, unemployment benefits, health insurance already and now you’re piling more crap on.

Roni

January 7th, 2013
9:06 am

Voice of Reason – I agree with you 100%!!! I saw FOUR lactation consultants while trying desperately to nurse my son. Not one of them bothered to look for a structural/physical reason he was not latching. They only “expert” advice I got was “try harder” and “be patient” and “this is natural – all women can do it, just keep trying.” What a load of crap! I’m sure there are good lactation consultants out there, but I won’t bother with one again – I’ll spare myself the anger and frustration and I’ll spare my insurance company the expense.

Jessica

January 7th, 2013
9:19 am

I have to agree with Voice of Reason on this one — I had difficulty nursing my first one, and the lactation consultant was completely useless. She didn’t have any helpful advice; instead, she just kept pushing me to try the same thing over and over. I ended up buying a pump and feeding her breast milk in bottles for six months.

As far as insurance covering breast pumps, I’m on the fence. I can see how it would be considered preventative care, since breast feeding is healthier for babies, but I think the end result will be a lot of new moms who don’t actually want/need the pumps getting them just to resell, which will push the cost of insurance higher for the rest of us.

FCM

January 7th, 2013
9:19 am

How many people will Abbott Labs and SmithKline layoff from the formula research departments and manufacturing of formula b/c we have the La Leche League view being promoted by Obamacare?

Jennifer

January 7th, 2013
9:36 am

I agree with most the sentiment here. Nothing is free. When I had my son five years ago I bought a pump for $300. I can tell you my insurance this year compared to that year is astronomical. We will have a baby this year and with my new copay, deductible and premiums I figure it will cost about $2000 MORE. That’s a lot to cover a $300 pump.

The lactation consultants I worked with were, nice, but not helpful. After 1 month my son was diagnosed with failure to thrive and I started supplementing, at 6 weeks I couldn’t produce. I had another friend who three months earlier was made cry in the hospital by the lactation consultants. She gave up on BF, she did pump as much as she could, but she didn’t even try with number 2.

Jennifer

January 7th, 2013
9:40 am

Oh, and manual pumps are cheap and readily available. Even some of the electric pumps are pretty cheap. If you can’t afford a one time expense of $20-$300, how are you going to pay for a child for the next 18 years?

lexi3

January 7th, 2013
9:40 am

Aquagirl

January 7th, 2013
6:47 am
A fundamental principle of real insurance …is “prevention.” Right, but prevention of losses by the insured, not the nanny state. I’ll admit that’s the canard used by politicians to spread around benefits they don’t need to pay for themselves. However, if “free” [to the patient] screenings cost $1 billion, but prevent only $250 million in disease, they are not cost effective. More to the point, the fact that mother’s milk may prevent your child from getting an ear infection later doesn’t mean that : (a) the child can only get it from a mother who pumps; or, even more importantly, (b) that the taxpayers (or other premium payers) should pay for your pump.

I know it’s a cold cruel world and life is hard, but most able-bodied folks ought to pull their own weight. And, while this escapes some folks who refute facts with ad hominem attacks, premiums need to cover not only the cost of the pumps (and the lactation “experts”), but the very large administrative costs attending distributing the apparatuses and teaching mothers to do what they’ve done sans apparatuses for millions of years.

One major reason health care is so expensive is that politicians dictate benefits to be covered by insurers. Fat farms, breast reductions (men and women) hair transplants, breast augmentations, sex changes, reverse sex changes, marital counseling, addiction treatments (ad infinitum), $9/month birth control, viagra, smoking cessation, mental health screenings and counseling…all have been forced into policies and public benefit coverages without a thought about the spiraling costs which are blamed on “greedy” insurance companies and providers. In [broke] England nurses are sent home with new mothers to teach them the obvious. Next expect nursery feng shui consultants. We can’t be far behind.

AG: I discern from your remarks that you are not well versed in what people will do for money and spend it on when they can avoid working for it.

yuki

January 7th, 2013
9:55 am

Everyone will be complaining about how their premiums are going up even more, but the money has to come from somewhere. I guess I’m happy that those getting the pumps “free” at least HAVE insurance and aren’t expecting the government to provide them, although I’m sure that’s coming too.

I had to pay for my pump. It’s called taking care of my own business. I needed a pump, I bought one. And I agree about the lactation consultants, ANNOYING. They make you feel like you are less of a mother if you can’t/won’t breastfeed. Kids can get sick even if they are breastfed exclusively. Just because some moms are milk machines doesn’t mean their children won’t get ear infections.

Aquagirl

January 7th, 2013
10:17 am

I know it’s a cold cruel world and life is hard, but most able-bodied folks ought to pull their own weight.

Well lexi, maybe you can find a job in an ER encouraging 8 year olds to “pull their own weight” when they’re flopping about like a fish out of water during an asthma attack. Substituting your harangue for treatment will save taxpayers a couple thousand dollars. Or we could buy mom a breast pump at 1/4th the cost and save that ER trip, plus several more, plus years–and possibly a lifetime—of medication.

Breast feeding is beneficial for the health of children, and those children will grow up to be healthier adults. If you’re so annoyed with “leeches” and “takers” not pulling their own weight that you can’t do simple math, I hope your insurance covers therapy for anger management.

I’m quite well discerned in what people will and won’t do for money, thanks. The difference between you and me is I’m not so angry and obsessed with “teaching someone a lesson” that I can’t think clearly. Thank goodness the rational side won the last election.

DB

January 7th, 2013
10:55 am

“The government does not bear the costs of providing breast pumps. Instead, insurers will have to pay for the new benefit, likely with a slight increase to the premiums they charge their members.

SLIGHT? Hahahahahahahahahahahah , , , . . THAT”s the whole ‘effing problem! NOTHING is free, and while the government may have waved its magic wand and said, “Make it so”, it doesn’t create the resources needed. SOMEONE has to pay for it. If someone wants a breast pump, then perhaps there should be some place where they are rented for a short period — like a wheelchair. But provide a free breastpump? Umm . .. for something as “natural” as breastfeeding, it sure seems to need a lot of electrical support! I agree with Voice of Reason — a lot of women are made to feel inadequate if they choose not to breastfeed. And even if you DO breastfeed, you’re judged on how LONG you breastfed . . lots of judgments going on over getting nutrition into a little baby.

And before the breast feeding Nazis jump all over me, I breastfed both of my kids for several months. When they started chewing, that was my signal to close down the Dairy Queen. :-)

homeschooler

January 7th, 2013
11:04 am

Agree with everyone except Aquagirl. It’s quite a stretch to consider a breast pump preventative medicine. First of all MOST children who were not breast fed never develop any chronic illnesses and MANY who were breast fed still do. A pump is a convenience not a necessity. For those for whom it might be considered a necessity there are ways to rent, there are manual pumps etc..Forcing an insurance company to purchase a 300 dollar pump for every woman who has a baby is insane. Completely insane!! I am sick to death of this government forcing private business to operate in a certain manner and I am sick to death of women who expect a free ride just because they are women.

lexi3

January 7th, 2013
11:09 am

Aquagirl

January 7th, 2013
10:17 am

Again, you haven’t explained why taxpayers should pay for your breast pump and lactation instruction, suggesting only that those things are beneficial. Vacations are beneficial too. Should taxpayers cover those costs as well?

Seems as though you’re hoping my insurance covers therapy for your anger management. Doubtless you are pleased with the results of the last election. Voting sure beats working for a living.

homeschooler

January 7th, 2013
11:16 am

btw.. my lactation consults were all covered under my insurance in 2000 and 2003. It was appreciated and I can see how lactation consults would be considered medical and preventative but not pumps. I bought my own pump. For CONVENIENCE. It was a LUXURY. But then again, so were cell phones for a while and now apparently people can’t live without them so we all pay a tax on our phone bill to cover the Obama phones. People in this country have a serious problem with discerning between wants and needs.

Jeff

January 7th, 2013
11:21 am

Voice, don’t sweat the name calling. When they start sounding like 7th graders on the playground, it’s because that’s all they are.

I agree with most of the sentiment that it is not free. Moving past the terminology of free, I hope more women who are capable of nursing will do so. Quite a bit can be thrown into the word capable, however, I sincerely hope that those who cannot nurse, for whatever reason, are not pilloried for not fitting in to the trend of the moment by the nazis who always seem to know best.

Chas Foster Kane

January 7th, 2013
11:22 am

Just another burden for taxpayers: pumping the udders of militant sows.

jarvis

January 7th, 2013
11:28 am

@Aquagirl, are you stating that the cost of giving every new mother in the country a breastpump will actually result in a cut to the total care of healthcare in the country because there will be less asthmatic trips to the ER?

That is your contention?

homeschooler

January 7th, 2013
11:30 am

Yes, Jarvis, I think that’s what she is saying. I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

Aquagirl

January 7th, 2013
11:38 am

Again, you haven’t explained why taxpayers should pay for your breast pump and lactation instruction

Poor lexi. In your unhinged rage at the mention of Obamacare, you seem to have forgotten this is about insurance….people who pay premiums maybe getting something in return for their money. Not taxpayers covering random poor people who make you foam at the mouth. Oddly enough I expect my insurance to cover my medical needs since I pay premiums. Weird, huh? I’m sorry that you and some other folks were screwed over by some cheap b@stard bean counters, apparently y’all have decided misery loves company.

It was a LUXURY. But then again, so were cell phones for a while and now apparently people can’t live without them so we all pay a tax on our phone bill to cover the Obama phones.

The majority of that tax goes to subsidize internet and phone coverage of rural areas, not “Obamaphones.” So if you’re upset by that tax, you’d be better off driving to Dothan AL and screaming out your car window. Except like this breast pump business, it’s not about money, it’s about your manufactured outrage at whoever you personally deem a parasite. Your personal irritation does not multiply the money involved.

If y’all would turn off the crazy tv and websites and do some math I might not be paying for your coronary bypass. After all, anger is a choice. Why I should subsidize your unhealthy lifestyle of freaking out over Obamaphones and breast pumps?

Logically this should lower insurance premiums for EVERYONE in the long run. It makes sense. If these two things enrage you, there’s not much to say—except once again, thank goodness cooler heads are in charge. So I’ll leave y’all to your screamfest.

jarvis

January 7th, 2013
11:42 am

Well if that’s the case, it’s just a poor argument, and one that is patently false.

A better argument would have been that she is strong supporter of breastfeeding, and while it may cost more in the long run, she believes it’s benefits outweigh the costs.

I would be on the other side of that fence. My first child was 6 weeks premature, and our insurance company paid for my wife’s top of the line breast pump.

After two months of blood in her stool it was discovered that my daughter had an incredibly sensitive allergy to something in my wife’s milk. As a result, we had to put her on hypo-allergenic formula. The $300+ machine sat basically new and unused.

My point? Is the government also going to enforce the usage of these pumps (of course they aren’t nor should they). It’s going to be an ENORMOUS waste of money.

Aquagirl

January 7th, 2013
11:52 am

My point? Is the government also going to enforce the usage of these pumps (of course they aren’t nor should they). It’s going to be an ENORMOUS waste of money.

jarvis, the plural of anecdotes is not data. The fact your wife’s breast pump went unused is not reason to exclude coverage of everyone else.

I doubt women who are not breast feeding or don’t need a pump will run out and buy one—what are they going to do? Put them on the coffee table as an object d’ art? Like any other piece of medical equipment you get one if you need one. I’m pretty sure my insurance covers crutches and leg braces but I don’t have any lying around the house.

Liz

January 7th, 2013
11:54 am

Aquagirl….I exclusively breast fed my oldest daughter and she still developed severe asthma. She never had formula or a bottle. And there was no smoking in our household either. Some kids still develop health issues even when they were breast fed.

Aquagirl

January 7th, 2013
12:03 pm

Some kids still develop health issues even when they were breast fed.

I wouldn’t dispute that point—my brother was breast fed and he has asthma and allergies. Breastfeeding doesn’t envelop every baby in a magic bubble. That doesn’t mean breastfeeding doesn’t provide health benefits when the sample population is larger than “your daughter and my brother.”

Some people get lung cancer without smoking a single cigarette, and one of my uncles smoked until he died at 94 of simple old age. Neither of these cases means smoking doesn’t cause higher rates of lung cancer.

lexi3

January 7th, 2013
12:03 pm

AquaGurl:

I will write this slowly so you can follow along. Resources are scarce. Even if our Dear Leader confiscated twice as much as he does now, there would not be enough to cover every lark, whim, want and need to satisfy everyone who has a list. Since resources are scarce, we should focus them on catastrophic illnesses and afflictions, and work down a triage list before buying acne medicine, hair relaxer, nail polish remover and tooth whitening strips for everyone too busy to work for a living.

Breast pumps for the hoi polloi are just another vote buying gambit by the forward brigade to have its core continue to feed off and stay dependent on the public teat. We are going deeper and deeper into debt to pay for this nonsense, and some folks believe the “rational side” won the last election.

resno2

January 7th, 2013
12:06 pm

if they cost $300 now, just imagine how expensive those government subsidized little gadgets will go for in a year.

mystery poster

January 7th, 2013
12:11 pm

When I had my children, 23 and 26 years ago, there were no “lactation consultants.” I breastfed them both and never had any issues, but I also had no one to turn to or get advice from when things got difficult because neither my mother nor mother-in-law breastfed, and the Internet was not available for most people at that time. I did it because I knew it was best for my babies, and I worked through the issues I had.

I had a two different breast pumps, the first was a syringe type that worked sometimes (I give it a grade of C). Since I was pumping every day at work, I went out and bought a Lopuco breast pump, the Cadillac of pumps at the time (I think it cost about $50 way back then). It consisted of a hand-squeezed pump, and a tube coming off that which went into a rubber stopper which went into a bottle. You really needed 3 hands to operate it. Since I have only 2, it was a challenge, and the Lopuco survived many times being hurled across the room. At that time, electric pumps were not available.

On a tangent, when my son was born I took 6 months off work. I pumped for 3 weeks after I got back, then decided that breast fed babies do not need bottles for comfort. So, he drank from a cup when I was at work and nursed when I was home. It took a lot of the pressure off (no pun intended). Your body will adjust to the schedule of when to make milk.

jarvis

January 7th, 2013
12:12 pm

@Aquagirl, please don’t speak about data like you have been using any. You’re just embarrassing yourself.

I know my wife’s situation is not one to base the entirety of the argument. I’d be willing to lay a wager on the fact that you know women (more than one or two) that have “intended” to breastfeed and quickly stopped for one reason or another. My sister and a friend (clogged duct), my wife (food alergy), two of cousins (found it too difficult with uncooperative children), ….these came to mind in the 3 seconds I’ve been thinking about this. There will be wasted money.

mystery poster

January 7th, 2013
12:17 pm

I just re-read my post. In the first paragraph I said I had no issues, then said I worked through the issues. I should have quantified that to be that I had no major issues, and worked through the minor ones.

I would be happy to see these devices covered by insurance. When my daughter was born (in 1986), vaccinations weren’t even covered by insurance. They would pay for the shots themselves, but no the accompanying office visit since well baby visits were not covered. In fact, the hospital pediatrician charged $500 to say she was well enough to go home. That was not covered by insurance since it was a “well” visit, even though I had not hired that doctor, nor given him permission to “treat” my daughter. Just one more reason I decided on a homebirth the second time around (NONE of which was covered by insurance).

Aquagirl

January 7th, 2013
12:24 pm

these came to mind in the 3 seconds I’ve been thinking about this. There will be wasted money

jarvis, all snark (and the horror stories here) aside, don’t you think a lactation consultant might help some women with “uncooperative” children or clogged ducts? The idea is to make breast feeding easier, which to me is a legitimate use of medical dollars. Not every piece of medical equipment or consult works, expecting a 100% success rate seems unrealistic.

Breast feeding does provide health benefits, really. A $300 breast pump is a small investment. Or a $900 breast pump, if you want to say it’ll only help 1/3 of the time and $600 will be “wasted.”

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/bfm.2009.0050

Christina

January 7th, 2013
12:29 pm

I am currently nursing my daughter. She’s almost 13 months old and I still pump at work every day and will continue to do so until she is two year old.

I’m also pregnant with another due in September. By the time I return to work with the next baby my poor pump (on it’s second baby already) will be in very sorry shape indeed.

I wouldn’t mind a replacement, though I’m not an idiot, I know it’s not free. I’m paying 120 more a month in premiums and co-pays went up by 20 a visit. My first baby (not counting premiums) was $150, my second was $2500 (thank you change in maternity plan), my third will be even more than that.

lexi3

January 7th, 2013
6:37 pm

Aquagirl

January 7th, 2013
11:38 am

Finally, the “little something” you are getting for your money when you pay health insurance premiums is coverage against identified risks that would cause catastrophic or large losses against which you are unable or unwilling to self insure. Since insurance cannot cover every whim, small losses are excluded, hence deductible and co-insurance arrangements. Complex huh?

Perhaps a $300 pump expense would be catastrophic to some folks. If that is the case, those folks likely cannot support themselves, let alone bring another human into the world for someone else to support. Perhaps some baby daddies could, you know, chip in, huh?

My homewoners policy will pay if my house burns. However, ordinary maintenance, such as painting, floodlight bulb replacement, roofing and the like are not covered. If they were my policy would cost lots more. Something you’ll appreciate if you ever buy a home.

missnadine

January 7th, 2013
7:17 pm

I know I will catch some hell by saying this, but I just can’t get over that there are women who need lactation specialists. Breastfeeding has been done for millions of years yet some women can figure this out?

motherjanegoose

January 7th, 2013
8:15 pm

@missnadine….I breastfed both of mine. I did not use a lactation specialist. I could just about sign my name to mystery poster’s first paragraph in her 12:11 post. That being said, when they initially brought my daughter to me in the hospital ( five years after her brother was born) I waved the nurse off and said I would be just fine. After all, I had breastfed her brother for 11 months! Well, in about 5 minutes I buzzed the nurse back. I had forgotten how to position a newborn. She was screaming and I was frustrated. We both laughed, after I got my daughter settled down. Just curious, have you breastfed any children? My two were not the same but I was eventually successful at breastfeeding both of them!

missnadine

January 7th, 2013
11:23 pm

@motherjanegoose – Yes, I have. With 2 kids, now grown. I only did it for a few months with the first, and only weeks with the second. It was not the bonding experience as I had hoped, and honestly, it is not for everyone. I used a bottle after that (sometimes my own milk, sometimes formula), and unlike what some people say here, I had very healthy children, with no allergies. I am a child of the 60s, and I guess by the time I hit my childbearing years I was a lot more self sufficient than some of these posters, and WAY less whiney! You are obviously not one of these types that need a lot of help. You post a lot, so I feel as if I know you at least a bit. You have always set your goals, done it on your own (no help from parents, same as me), you travel a lot (me too, but international – a million-miler with Delta at this point), you are thrifty (I am so money cautious), you have an advanced degree (me too) and you have raised intelligent and self-sufficient children, as did I. I am also an entrepreneur, and run my own small business, and have been on my own, as in out of the house, since my teens. I paid my own school, and my own wedding! I think women have become weaker rather than stronger, and even T’s posts reflect her inability at times to make an easy decision like where to pierce daughter’s ears, whether to let the husband pick out gifts, and so forth.

I think it is crazy that insurance would cover a lactation specialist -just crazy, and I am not too keen on the pump being paid either. These are not medical necessities, and I think that woman, more so now than ever, just give up and take the easy road, making excuses for their failures. To end my rant, I also have a real problem with how much we medicate our children. I think you might be my age or close, low 50s, and I can guarantee you that none of my classmates growing up were on meds for ADD and so forth. As you know, it didn’t exist then. What did exist was exercise, better nutrition, and less reliance on instant gratification. My children, though they made me crazy at times, were not put on a slew of meds in order to help them, or me “cope”. Sorry about the length of the reply. I was not an attachment or helicopter parent, and i just can’t stand those who are! In retrospect, I could have been more warm and fussy, but that is just not me. However, like you, I was always told that my kids were respectful and well behaved, and I wouln’t put up with half the crap that some of these posters put up with. Thanks for listening!

missnadine

January 7th, 2013
11:25 pm

Please also excuse my typos!

Kalinn

January 7th, 2013
11:44 pm

It is amazing the lack of logic that is used in half or more of the comments on this post. For those that say, “it’s just one more thing for the taxpayers to pay for”: 28+ states (prior to the healthcare reform) required breast pumps to be covered for their low income, state-insured. Logically speaking, paying $300 for a pump that will last at a minimum of a year, versus the cost of paying for that same woman’s/baby’s formula is in fact a savings to the taxpayer. Now, can we logically say that the woman will in fact nurse and pump for a full year and thus not use her state insurance/WIC to pay for formula? No. But to that same point, do you say “eventually, my car will have enough problems or be totalled in an accident, that I will have to spend money on a new car and therefore I will not change the oil, rotate the tires, or perform any other preventative maintenance”? No! And additionally to the “taxpayer” comments: I AM a tax payer. I AM a mother about to deliver. I HAVE private insurance. I PAY premiums. The same premiums that everyone is furious about increasing. So to the logic (or lack thereof) supplied in most of your comments, if I take the pump provided by my insurance carrier (which IS a NECESSITY- homeschooler- as I work for a living, outside of the home, away from my baby for more than 4 hours at a time) I am living on the “taxpayer’s” dime.
To this lingering idea that breastfeeding is natural and it is crazy that women would need lactation support: I am incredibly curious as to how many of you have successfully breastfed a baby. 50+ years ago, it was completely normal for women to breastfeed. They had the support of their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, etc… Now over 40% of women never even attempt to breastfeed. Furthermore, less that half of all children are still being breastfed after 6 months. Factoring 2 children per mother, that is only 25% (at best) of all childbearing women that have any form of substantial knowledge on the subject.
I am also curious to know how many of you sent your children to public schools. Where I live, the public schools are a trap of ignorance and a stamp on a child’s future to not succeed. So, I send my children to private schools. Do I complain that my tax dollars send “your” children to school?
If the cost of healthcare were not as high as it is and if I did not have to spend thousands of dollars a year sending my children to a school that isn’t over-run by sheer ignorance and stupidity, I could afford to stay home and nurse my babies without the need of a breast pump. So in the end, I will be accepting the breast pump from my insurance company for this baby. If I am paying the increased premiums, why shouldn’t I? What shouldn’t be a factor is judgement from others that refuse to use any sort of logic and assume that women that get their pumps from insurance providers don’t pay the same premiums as everyone else.

DB

January 7th, 2013
11:59 pm

@missnadine: Women may have been breastfeeding for thousands of years, but it’s only been relatively recently that breastfeeding a baby was considered an almost obscene act. There are at least a couple of generations of women who have never seen a baby breastfed — their mothers didn’t do it, and the people that they DID see doing it were generally frowned upon for being “indecent” in public. So, yeah, I can see where the services of a lactation consultant may be a practical matter.

As I mentioned above, I breastfed both of my kids. My mother thought I was a complete idiot for “tying” myself down that way — it’s not that she was unsupportive, but she had a raging case of mastitis when I was born, and the idea of nursing, even now, gives her the heebie-jeebies. I had never actually seen a child nursing before I had kids, I just felt that it was something I wanted to try, at least for the health benefits. With the irritation that came with first-time nursing, I was almost crying every time the baby wanted to nurse, and out of desperation, I called a LaLeche League volunteer for advice. She was warm, reassuring and gave me excellent advice that worked well — I probably continued breastfeeding because of her.

missnadine

January 8th, 2013
1:38 am

@DB – I don’t think anybody thinks breastfeeding is obscene! What a lot of people have a problem with is when it is not done discreetly. That is another topic.

DB

January 8th, 2013
9:02 am

@missnadine: I was speaking historically.

Lexi

January 8th, 2013
1:14 pm

Kalinn:
The complaint is not that women who get pumps from an insurance company don’t pay the same premiums as others. It’s that money spent on breast pumps can’t be spent on other things, and, when politicians interfere with decisions about how scarce premium revenue ought to be allocated, those politicians squander those resources. To buy votes. Again,it is axiomatic that we don’t have enough resources to insure against every sling and arrow life brings. Do we want “protection” against the foreseeable, manageable expense of (gasp) birth control pills for everyone, or coverage for cancer treatments for a few deathly ill patients that may cost millions? Silly as it sounds, insurance companies don’t have unlimited revenue and must budget premium income just like families. Governments face the same constraints, though they have the power to confiscate revenue to some degree.
Many people seem to view health insurance as a prepaid medical plan. In its pure sense Insurance is not, though many medical plans have those aspects as marketing devices. Consequently, you may have your $75 bi-annual dental cleanings paid, but get reimbursed only $1500 for $8000 braces. I’d rather pay for the cleanings out of pocket, and have my premiums used for the large expense of the braces.

motherjanegoose

January 8th, 2013
1:25 pm

@miss nadine…I was following along until the ADD meds. Back then, we did have BAD kids. I am sure you knew them too! I found this article interesting:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/experts/explosion.html

We could be perhaps more alike than different, up until our views on ADD or ADHD. I must agree with DB that when you are trying something brand new, such as breastfeeding, it helps to have resources. I did not have a lactation consultant but I did have close friends who were amazing. When you are around people who are successful at what you want to do, it makes things easier.