Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Breastfeeding ( NO JOKES)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Leodom

    Just because a government agency recognizes something as healthier or better does not mean that the government is then obligated to pay for it.
    That's not saying much. Often a government will pay for something like that in order to promote it, if only to reduce the burden of disease upon society in the long run.

    I mean, WTH is the point of the government if not to help keep society healthy?

    Comment


      #17
      We (by we I of course mean the mrs... even though my boobs probably are big enough...sigh).. breast fed for as long as possible... unfortunately (mainly in our second borns case) supply couldnt keep up with demand and thus we had to combine the two at about the 4 month mark...

      We are pretty lucky in the UK as you can take 6 months here... the first 3 at least are full pay not sure if the next three are half or more....

      Comment


        #18
        Considering that we have goverment health care, it makes sense for the goverment to motivate certain factors to decrease the chances of using said health care.

        I think that the goverment should also look into the full pay for a year thing for one little reason that they love to think about:
        TAX BASE !!

        The more children the greater the future tax base.

        Comment


          #19
          Sadly enough, it's not really a question of health, it's money. Leave it to patfromlogan to bring international politics/money/rotten corporations and their relationships to WTO and the US Gov to the thread!!!!


          http://www.womensedge.org/pages/prin...ndly.jsp?id=35

          "This issue is not usually seen as a women's issue but has wide implication in women's lives. One example is a WTO case that involves Gerber Baby Food. Guatemala had set up rules on baby formula that had been developed UNICEF and the World Health Organization. The rules stated that packaging for baby formula was not to allow pictures of fat, healthy babies. Most of the women in Guatemala are illiterate and cannot read the label. If they see the packaging that shows a fat, healthy child, many decide that they should be feeding their children formula and not breast-feeding. This can lead to watering down of formula, malnutrition, and other problems that can lead to infant death. After the law was passed, there was a reported drop in infant mortality. Gerber threatened to sue Guatemala because the fat, baby picture on their logo is protected by international patent law and they felt that the government could not deny them the right to use it. Guatemala essentially said that they do not have the money to fight Gerber and their health ministry could not afford to have a costly legal battle. They essentially had to repeal an effective law under the pressure of international corporations and the WTO. "


          http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomDrugs.html
          "Preparing mentally, the most important thing is, if you aren't doing it for the love of it, then don't do it." - Benny Urquidez

          Comment


            #20
            Another issue is that breast fed babies are "typically" not as fat as formula fed babies, and that gives some parents concern.
            Though the fact that infant obesity is on the rise is ignored by many.

            Here in Canada, all formulas have the disclaimer that: " breast feeding is the ideal choice for your infant" and " formula can be used as a supplement and a subsitute when recomened by your doctor".

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Wounded Ronin
              That's not saying much. Often a government will pay for something like that in order to promote it, if only to reduce the burden of disease upon society in the long run.

              I mean, WTH is the point of the government if not to help keep society healthy?
              Why, then, shouldn't the government pay a woman who has chosen to stay home and care for her children full-time? At least for the first year of each of her children's lives?

              If a woman has another child every 2 years, should an employer or the government continue to pay her each time she stays home for a year after childbirth?

              Comment


                #22
                I guess it goes down to what the public wants to do with their tax money. Giving that many Western countries are increasingly having less children and the Baby Boomer generation is retiring and the burden of taxes our being placed on the post generation it may not neccesarily be a bad thing though???

                Comment

                Collapse

                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                Working...
                X