Baby "too fat" to be insured-EBF - Page 2

[KimberlyD0]

Originally Posted by annettemarie

It is absolutely a breastfeeding issue. There are different growth charts for breastfed babies, and breastfed babies have a different growth curve than their formula-fed peers.

I know that. But this baby wasn't denied coverage because he was BF. He was denied because he was so called obese. A totally unrelated issue. Can any one show that they knew he was BF? or that they blamed him being obese on BF? or that he was denied because he was BF? No.

This is why I don't think its a BF issue. I hope that people would be just as upset if this child happened to be FF.

Correct me if I am wrong but the BF charts are set lower then the normal charts are they not? Thats one thing I am a little confused about. I know they Midwife was upset with me when I started to try and re-lactate because she had to start another weight chart.

Were they using a BF chart or the FF chart?

I am not trying to be contrary or anything, its just my interpretation of the issue. I mean no baby should be denied coverage because they're so called obese, I don't care if they're BF or FF, its not right. So I do agree its a horrible situation.

I am also glad it was corrected and he now had coverage. I hope this doesn't happen again to any child.

[annettemarie]

Because this was posted in the Lactivism forum, we're going to assume that the OP wishes to discuss this from the angle of how this decision may encourage or discourage breastfeeding. If anyone wishes to discuss it from the nutrition angle, please feel free to start a thread in Health and Healing. Thanks!

[KimberlyD0]

I'm sorry then I missunderstood.

I thought this forum was to help with awarness and support for BF and BF issues. About people denied rights ONLY because they BF. Which I totally agree with and support all moms in making sure they can BF without any interuptions from ignorant people.

I thought we were not supposed to post news stories here and thats why I was confused. I also read in the article that this was standard for all babies, BF or FF and I was also then confused how it is a lactavist issue when in this case BOTH are treated equally baddly. kwim?

I'm still a little confused but I do appologise.

[annettemarie]

You can read the forum purpose in the sticky at the top of the forum. News stories are allowed as they apply to the forum topic. Asking for clarification is fine, but we do ask that questions about moderation, rules, etc (such as telling someone their post is off-topic to the forum) be addressed to the moderators/administrators via PM, as per the User Agreement:

Concerns, constructive criticism and questions of clarification regarding the User Agreement or moderator and administrator actions are best addressed directly to the moderator or administrator by private message or personal e-mail. Please do not post on the board to debate, criticize, argue or challenge the MDC User Agreement, the moderators, administrators, or their actions. If private messages or emails are not successful, see Recourse for further steps.

So as to not further derail the conversation, you can PM me if you have any other questions.

[thepeach80]

BF charts actually start out higher the first few mos, which means he would come in at a lower % on the bf baby chart vs the ff chart. That's why it makes no sense to tell a mama to plot their small, young baby on the bf baby chart, lol. Trust me, I tried it and it made it worse.

[elanorh]

Yes, the first few months of weight gain are actually faster with a bf baby than with a ff'd baby. The differences in overall weightgain, where the ff baby 'outpaces' the bf baby, occurs more significantly past the four month mark (and IIRC this babe is four months exactly).

dd2 was off the charts for height and weight at four months (off the bf charts). She was a monster at that point! She is now a slim, tall three year old through no insurance company intervention at all.