Hellobee Boards

@pui: The Child Tax Credit was not created for the purposes of encouraging procreation. It (along with several other tax credits) was created for the purpose(s) of helping families in an effort to reduce/eliminate child poverty.

@Dandelion: It's hard to compare the American government with any other government! Things are SO different here than in the rest of the world.

@pui: Oh, I wasn't trying to imply it was like a tax break at all - just the opposite! Based on the fact they are fining people for going over their allotted number of children, I suspect they don't give tax breaks at all for having children! Hope that makes sense.

@Adira: Ah okay that definitely makes sense!

Money isn't going to change anything. You could put the same efforts towards a parenting enrichment class, but again, people would just attend for the cash incentive, rather than a genuine desire to prepare and educate themselves.

I am a formula feeding mom for similar reasons as @cherry bee: my milk never came in, and my daughter was starving and suffering from jaundice. Try as I might, I couldn't maintain a breastmilk supply. There were times when I would grumble, kick rocks, and wish I could receive some sort of pardon. Of course, I would have loved to have my formula covered by a program, especially when I had already shelled out a pretty penny on breastfeeding equipment and supplies. But, alas, this is what parenting entails - adjustment, and sacrifice.

I'm not particularly offended by this incentive program (although I don't believe the argument that breastfeeding, in and of itself, guarantees a healthy baby), but I don't think it's going to accomplish the goal its aiming for.

I don't think it will be effective. I'll just leave it there.

@jedeve: I understand and agree with some of your points. However, the point that you make about formula feeding being higher among lower socioeconomic groups is an interesting one, especially as it relates to overall baby health. While formula fed babies are indeed said to get sick more often, I'm curious if their family's level of education, and lack of funds could possibly lend itself to an overall increased risk of illness.

As a formula feeding mother (out of necessity, rather than choice) with a baby that has yet to become ill, I often wonder these things, and can't really get behind a country offering cash incentives to ensure baby's health, when there's other things that could be at play.

I think one of the barriers to higher bf'ing rates is that for many years we had the formula companies and the medical establishment telling us that bf'ing was inferior to formula and just shouldn't be done. These days the formula companies seem to spend gazillions still convincing women they should be formula feeding for their own financial gain. As a non-American it blows me away the way that formula companies advertise, send out coupons and send out unsolicited formula samples to pregnant women.

In my opinion, initiatives like the one mentioned are just trying to swing the pendulum the other way even though I'm not sure how successful it will be in the long term. I do however wonder if the money would be better spent sending an IBCLC or "feeding" specialist to see every mother at home at 1-2 weeks post partum (or the point in time when most mothers switch to formula).

I completely disagree that formula companies are still trying to convince the general public that they offer a "better" feeding method. In fact, on almost all the coupons and containers of formula I have purchased or received, there is a "breast is best" message, despite the contents inside *not* being breastmilk. I received many samples and coupons while I was pregnant and it never once swayed me from my decision to EBF. Unfortunately, I couldn't breastfeed, and those samples and coupons helped with the burden of having to purchase formula when I had *already* purchased everything needed to EBF.

I agree with @turtledoves: this kind of policy could just end up being another way to stigmatize formula feeding mothers. If anything, it's quite clear that breastfeeding is advertised as the "best" option - I have yet to come across a single medical professional that has touted otherwise.

@TurtleDoves: slightly off topic, but I really believe that IBCLC's should be trained and able to give out advice on bottle feeding (formula and bm) so that families can be given accurate information that's going to best work for their situation.

@deerylou: let's be honest, we're stigmatised whichever way we feed our babies - damned if we do, damned if we don't!!

@photojane: You mentioned that the money would be better spent on things like LC, support groups, literature, and better support overall for breastfeeding mothers.....but the UK has all of that already, usually for free. Clearly it hasn't made as big of an impact as they would have liked so now it's time to try something else.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this program. With only 1/3 of mothers giving their babies any breast milk at six months, I think it is time to do something to try and increase that number. Whether you want to believe it or not, the health benefits of breastfeeding, for both mother and baby, have clearly been documented across the board. Yes, there are other mitigating factors that determines a child's health, but the bottom line is that you cannot deny the benefits. It does not mean that FF kids are screwed for life, it just means that they have a higher chance of developing certain health conditions. For a country who brilliantly provides free health care to all, why SHOULDN'T they do everything they can to make the population as healthy as possible, thereby lowering their overall expenditures in the long run?

I really don't see how this is insulting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with FF, but you can't deny facts that there are certain health benefits that can only be received through breast milk.

@Ree723: I agree that nothing if wrong with FF but that breastfeeding is nutritionally superior because it does contain anitbodies and many other characteristics that only a mother can give to her baby, however: policies like this just create stigma.
In the US, if a woman lives in poverty, she will receive WIC to help her purchase milk, cheese, formula. The dairy products are to feed the mother so she may breastfeed, but the formula vouchers are to give her another option if she chooses to formula feed. No stigma. They don't even care which you choose. Also, now the breast pump is covered under ACA. options, options... No one is being paid for one decision over the other.
This all is not to say the US has the best child welfare policies--it is so far from that. Just some food for thought.

This is such an emotionally charged topic that I think its difficult for anyone on ether side of the fence to be totally subjective.

I also think its difficult for Americans to wrap our heads around the idea of NHS.

In this situation I think of the British government not as the government but as the Health Insurance Provider. They aren't trying to just give an ethical gold star to people for making the choice the breastfeed. They must believe based on their research that if a baby is breastfed rather than formula fed it will save the NHS some amount of money greater than the 200 pound incentive. I don't see this as being any different from the fact that my Health Insurance Provider would charge me a higher premium if I made the choice to be a tobacco user. (Yes, some will argue here that some people physically aren't able to choose to breastfeed and that's not the same as choosing to use tobacco but it seems the NHS has provided for those situations by giving free prescription formula to those who qualify). The only issue here is that the NHS is already free, so they can't discount for those who breastfeed the way that my insurance company discounts for those who don't use tobacco. They have to give money back to the breastfeeding mothers, and I think this is what rubs people the wrong way.... That there is a cash pay out rather than just a discounted rate.