It started simply; my insurer didn't pay a claim, and I found out that it was a lactation consultation--yes, after four years, Mom and Dad do forget some tricks of the trade and find these tremendously helpful. At first, I was incredulous that they were unwilling to cover this, as back in 1997, a Kaiser Foundation study found that breastfeeding reduced first-year medical costs by $1500. OK, $200 for a lactation consultation versus $1500 in medical costs--OK, close to twice that today, most likely. ROI looks pretty good on that from my perspective, even if these consultations don't always make the difference between nursing and formula.
Then I considered what a nursing mother represents to many companies; a wife who will not be available to work and split insurance costs with her husband--my company requires spouses who can get coverage with their company to get their own coverage.
And so suddenly, it made sense. My company isn't seeing $1500 or $3000 in savings, but rather a $5000 cost as they need to insure not just employee and children, but rather employee, wife, and children--and a greater cost as they consider that when that employee gets tired of them, it's a lot easier to move to a new opportunity when one doesn't need to find a job for one's spouse, too.
So just like in Truman's time, employer paid health insurance is not a benefit, but is rather a "golden shackle" to make it more difficult for employees to demand better wages and working conditions. Perhaps it's time to equalize the tax status of employer paid health insurance and individually paid health insurance, and require employers who provide this
4 comments:
i'm with you on that. i also believe that if emplorer provided plans are not taxed as income, that all medical expenses should be treated the same as well.
the reality: what we call medical insurance isnt really insurance in the honest sense. its a package of services.
insurance is what you buy when you dont plan on using it, for just in case you need it.
I wonder, though -- if they took into account the fact that a lactation consultant frequently *allows* the mom to go back to work, by making the nursing process go smoothly enough that she might consider working-and-pumping -- are the numbers still so clear cut?
I think that scenario is probably more likely than the one where the mom realizes nursing isn't going well, and then just thinks, "Hey, if I'm going to bottle feed anyway, I may as well go back to work." If that was the tipping point of the work vs. home decision, the much greater likelihood is that they would have chosen bottle feeding in the beginning.
I don't doubt they do the analysis they way you suggest, I just wonder if they're not missing something.
with something as natural to our creation as breastfeeding, why would a women need classes anyway?
short of another mildly experienced woman saying something like... bare breast, insert into baby's mouth... and go with it... what more could there be?
seems to me like a complication of the simple.
Gino; it's natural, but quite frankly, a lot of women need the coaching that grandmothers and midwives used to provide to get the hang of it. Don't forget that trouble in childbearing was part of the Fall of Adam and Eve.
Pentamom; yes, but what I've seen is that when Mom bonds with baby in nursing, somehow the job seems a lot less important. Statistics could tell something different, of course.
Post a Comment