Mitch, your comparison is completely invalid
Please, if my point of view is "invalid," then prove it by providing the data.
Likewise, if pumping is more expensive, then please provide the data instead of simply expressing an opinion without the data.
Direct cost -- that is, the out-of-pocket expense -- is not the only consideration. Having used N/NPH insulins from 1966 through 1988, I am very familiar with the downsides of long-acting insulin: nocturnal hypoglycemia; reduced options during periods of moderate to extreme exercise, limited primarily to ingesting extra glucose/carbs; fewer options for absorption issues; fewer short-term corrective options due to the longer duration of the insulin in tissues.
Having used a pump since 1988, I have the data of direct costs and I also have the indirect cost benefits of improved A1c values, the lower costs in treating complications that occured after 22 years of injections, etc.
Evaluating cost and benefits, both direct and indirect, is something most people consider sensible and prudent for everything in life. Attaching values for each to permit comparisons is valuable and is the same kind of methodology used in scientific research, including clinical trials.
Competing opinions in the absence of data/evidence provide little, if any, benefit to others trying the manage the myriad challenges of surviving and prospering with T1D.
My opinion: the costs of T1D are real and deserve much greater exposure. No one is benefited by concealing the costs of T1D.