Oh shut up. Nursing releases chemicals that relax women who nurse and can be quite pleasant. That’s just a fact.
Birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures & manicures as well?
Argh. No one was pushing anything on anyone. The only points being argued were that:
- Breastfeeding is cheaper than formula, and
- A breast pump allows most women to breast feed and still work outside the home.
These are facts, and not disputable. That is all anyone said. No one was arguing that because these things are true, every mother must breastfeed, or that formula offers no advantages. A mother can choose to feed her baby however she likes, but she will save money if she breastfeeds, and she does not have to stay home to do so. Everyone also readily allowed that these points are not true in the case that the mother happens to be on a different continent from her baby, and other exceedingly rare exceptions.
And the whole reason this hijack got started was because you asserted that these two facts were not true:
Again, formula is generally an order of magnitude more expensive than breastfeeding, and is convenient for the overwhelming majority of women employed outside their home.
And to bring it all back around to the OP, as DianaG says, the savings and convenience of breastfeeding benefits both mothers and fathers.
You already do get a discount since men pay lessfor health insurance than women do.
I went from asshole to honey, so I must be doing something right. 
Okay, I did change topics in midstream, so I will stay on point.
My point is that if I do pay half for my sexual partner’s birth control or breastpump it is because I am in a committed relationship with the woman or otherwise there by my own choice. The insurance company does not assume that risk on my behalf.
If I am a single guy, screwing random women, I don’t pay for half of their birth control. If they get pregnant and have a child, I have to pay child support, but again, this is not something that the insurance company is paying for. And my child support payment is not offset by the free breast pump that she receives through her health insurance.
I am not arguing that a woman who is provided with free birth control could prevent me from having to pay child support down the line if she otherwise didn’t take it. What I am arguing is that for insurance purposes only, I have not received a benefit from the company because of my increased premium that offsets their risk in providing health insurance for me.
But with this added benefit, I should get a larger discount.
Masturbation releases chemicals that can be very relaxing to the person being masturbated. That’s just a fact. But you know what it’s still illegal to have a child fondle your genitals.
What’s in it for me when they buy you that Viagra?
So is dying in natural childbirth and drinking fecal contaminated water. I have always thought the point of civilization is getting away from third world conditions.
Tell me again how I’m exaggerating your position, ZPGZ. It releases chemicals that are very relaxing and pleasant for me.
Less money spent on batteries.
I don’t have a baby’s momma and my girlfriend and I make due with condoms. So I’m not getting any benefit.
Sad to say, I lol’ed.
If the reason for breast feeding is because it makes the mother feel pleasure, I guess you are in deed a pedophile. Congratulations for admitting it. Now you need to get help and the baby needs to be placed in care of a guardian that doesn’t use children to satisfy their sexual needs.
nm pointless
If they changed the program to offer Viagra with no deductibles or copays, then you would have a legitimate point about asking why your premiums were increasing for no added benefit to you.
Plus, again, the inability of a man to get an erection, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, or whatever are all diseases, whether caused by age, poor lifestyle choices, or acts of God, which represent failures of health: the very thing that health insurance is designed to risk pool against.
Fertility is not a disease.
Do you agree that a woman who is capable of bearing children is not, by this fact alone, demonstrating a symptom of a deterioration in her health?
Look, the way insurance works is that everyone pays into it, and everyone gets something out of it, but what we get is different, because we all have different issues.
If you want to live your life worrying that someone, somewhere, is getting something that you’re not, help yourself. Me, I’m gonna go get laid.
I’m sorry, are all forms of pleasure sexual to you? Who said breastfeeding was sexually pleasurable? Hard as this is for you to understand, breast feeding is a bonding experience that many women enjoy. Much like holding a baby and cuddling it is a sensation many women enjoy. I don’t even have children, nor do I want children, nor do I like babies, and even I know that. It seems that this idea that touching your own progeny is a positive experience is quite foreign to you. Were you by chance, raised by the Wire Mother?
I think the apter analogy is insurance paying for IVF treatments for a 60-year-old woman.
Seriously. What the fuck is *wrong *with these people? They should do us all a favor and go stand around an x-ray machine until they get cancer. Then *they *can receive millions of dollars in benefits that other people don’t get, so *they’ll *be happy, and hopefully they’ll eventually die, at which point the *rest of us *will be happy.
WIN/WIN.
$5 says the complainers are probably also fat. Know what drives up everyone else’s health care costs the most and is completely avoidable? Obesity and its comorbidities, like diabetes.
I’m late to this thread, but I wanted to say a couple of things:
-
If you’re in the private market for insurance (i.e., no employer plan), you generally have to purchase a maternity rider before anything related to having a baby (pre-natal exams and vitamins, actually having the baby and the required aftercare) will be covered. Even if you’re not in the private market, if you’re working for a particularly small employer (under 100), there are many that cannot afford or choose not to offer a rich enough plan to include maternity insurance. So technically, you might say that if you’re a man with a private insurance plan or an employer for a small company with no maternity insurance, you do get a discount because you’re not required to purchase a maternity rider if you’re not having a baby, nor are you required to pay for others who are having children.
-
Just to clear up your comment about Viagra’s health benefits…yes, it helps with ED. However, IMHO, it’s off-label uses are more important. It can be used to treat severe congestive heart failure. Were I making the argument for Viagra coverage, that would be the argument I’d use, not ED. Unfortunately, many drugs are not covered for off-label uses.
Also, with respect to paid leave, curlcoat, I think you might be confusing FMLA and short term disability. For many women whose companies offer employees a short-term disability policy “free” (like mine does), they will receive up to 70% of their wages for up to 6 weeks. Yes, pregnancy is considered a short-term disability under the terms of many employers’ policies if they’re large enough and can afford it. The second six weeks of time off, if they choose to take it, is covered under FMLA without pay. All FMLA does is protect your job. It’s highly likely that the women in your job were taking a combination of STD and FMLA.
With respect to breastfeeding, it’s ridiculous to even bring the idea of incest into it. Yes, it feels good. It’s meant to feel good, though for some people it really doesn’t, and if it’s uncomfortable for them, they shouldn’t do it. It releases chemicals that are relaxing for both the mother and baby. It’s also cheap, better “quality” than formula and highly portable. It actually has a longer out-of-the-fridge shelf life than formula does, so even if you pump it and take it with you, it’s likely to last longer than a bottle of Similac.
Additionally, it conveys health benefits to both mother and child that save a significant amount of money for everyone in an insurance plan. It reduces the mother’s risk of developing cancers, reduces her risk of obesity, reduces her risk of heart disease and diabetes. It does the same for the baby, reduces its risk of infection, reduces risk of dying of SIDS.
In my view, it’s ridiculous to argue that we shouldn’t be paying for something that does all that. If you look at it from a “what’s in it for me?” perspective, there’s a hell of a lot in it for everyone - savings, health, etc. However, some people don’t want to breastfeed or can’t do it. No big deal. They can use formula. Hell, make the formula free - in my opinion, the long-term savings you’d get from reduced rates of cancer, diabetes, obesity and infection would outweigh the cost of both promoting breastfeeding for those who can do it and make formula available for those who can’t.
Oh, and if someone is suicidal over the inability to breastfeed or because they don’t want to do it, they’ve got way bigger issues than being “slave” to their bodies and babies. I think it’s moronic and willfully inaccurate to say that formula magically “fixes” that.
Aw God. Just because people say that health insurance shouldn’t cover everything for everyone then we are heartless assholes.
How about this. Let’s mandate that health insurance provide every man, with no copay or deductible, a free monthly visit to a strip club. Do you object? You do? How is it hurting you by me getting a benefit that you don’t get?