Expecting and I just found out I don't qualify for short term disability. America is not pro-life/pro-birth

[Anonymous]

Can two things be true? Can we fight for better benefits and also plan appropriately for the benefits we currently have?

DP

Yes. Absolutely yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP as an addition to your story, I have STD but it doesnt cover pregnancy or pregnancy-related complications. I also have no maternity leave.
People can suck it. There's a reason nothing like this should be tied to employment. Insurance. STD. Maternity/paternity, etc. Its all shitty quid pro quo for capitalism.

And for those of comparing 55% (sometimes untaxed) for a year to 100% for 12 weeks (taxed) with the latter as better, I cant even. Its like someone saying ill give you a dollar for 365 days a week versus someone saying ill give you 2 dollars for 90 days and you thinking the latter is a win.

55% with no daycare costs, ability to nap when baby naps, ability to enjoy and experience being nap trapped, to be the first thing your baby sees in the morning and the last view at night, to be able to walk and explore outside with them versus 100% and a nanny/daycare at 12 weeks where you are lucky if they get picked up and carried and loved. Again see the shitty quid pro quo for capitalism.

Without tying it to employment, people would make even worse decisions. If taxpayers were forced to pay people thousands of dollars to have babies (which is what we’re talking about here, since OP wants benefits that she didn’t pay into) then we’d have tons of women constantly pregnant and having babies they can’t afford just because they get paid to do that.

You are very short-sighted and I would rather my taxes go to women and children and families (in whatever form they come in) compared to bombing women and children. Or billionaire tax cuts.
You have to decide whether you want babies born or immigration. You could also- I dont know- limit it to two children. My god youre just insufferable and knee jerk No No No tantrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of people out here fighting for the rights of employers to shit all over moms has me despairing that things will ever change. You all sound like Pick Me’s for capitalism.

OP this sucks and is super gross, but try not to let it overshadow your joy. Congratulations!

Can two things be true? Can we fight for better benefits and also plan appropriately for the benefits we currently have?

I didn’t opt into short term disability because my policy had a 10 month waiting period for pregnancy. I then calculated how much it would pay out vs. how much I would have to pay in and realized by two years it wouldn’t cost more than it would pay out.

I also knew how to cover my maternity leave so I saved leave to cover it. I signed up for benefits that I researched and made sure worked for me. At the same time I am also a loud advocate for increasing the amount of paid leave my organization offers.

I also choose to work at a lower paying job because it has better benefits. I chose to stay at a job I didn’t like because it had better benefits.

I think the thing that really gets me frustrated is that some women tend to get really preachy about choices and its kind of the rherotic that the billionaire white male class uses to make you think that other people just make bad "choices" and are deserving of their lives whereas you make all good "choices" and are therefore deserving of fruitfulness.

You state that you could choose to work at a lower paying job with better benefits. As if thats a choice everyone has and if we make the choice tree all the way down to "well you choose to have sex" (see this entire post for multiple references to it) because we are all just a product of our choices (and all options are available to us) then you play right into my above statement.

I appreciate your advocacy at your employer but I am firmly of the belief that if we want to support children and mothers then it should be a national effort, regardless of "choices". There is actual scientific evidence to support these measures both in mortality rates and other issues but its America sooo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of people out here fighting for the rights of employers to shit all over moms has me despairing that things will ever change. You all sound like Pick Me’s for capitalism.

OP this sucks and is super gross, but try not to let it overshadow your joy. Congratulations!

Can two things be true? Can we fight for better benefits and also plan appropriately for the benefits we currently have?

I didn’t opt into short term disability because my policy had a 10 month waiting period for pregnancy. I then calculated how much it would pay out vs. how much I would have to pay in and realized by two years it wouldn’t cost more than it would pay out.

I also knew how to cover my maternity leave so I saved leave to cover it. I signed up for benefits that I researched and made sure worked for me. At the same time I am also a loud advocate for increasing the amount of paid leave my organization offers.

I also choose to work at a lower paying job because it has better benefits. I chose to stay at a job I didn’t like because it had better benefits.

I think the thing that really gets me frustrated is that some women tend to get really preachy about choices and its kind of the rherotic that the billionaire white male class uses to make you think that other people just make bad "choices" and are deserving of their lives whereas you make all good "choices" and are therefore deserving of fruitfulness.

You state that you could choose to work at a lower paying job with better benefits. As if thats a choice everyone has and if we make the choice tree all the way down to "well you choose to have sex" (see this entire post for multiple references to it) because we are all just a product of our choices (and all options are available to us) then you play right into my above statement.

I appreciate your advocacy at your employer but I am firmly of the belief that if we want to support children and mothers then it should be a national effort, regardless of "choices". There is actual scientific evidence to support these measures both in mortality rates and other issues but its America sooo.

x1000

[Anonymous]

I don't know about you but my periods were very erratic (I got pregnant easily but it required a lot of planning) and in that case, how would someone know how to report last missed period. What would the consequence be of moving that forward by a couple of weeks to fall in the window if that was your best guess for when your period should have been? Who would question it when women's cycles have lots of natural variation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know about you but my periods were very erratic (I got pregnant easily but it required a lot of planning) and in that case, how would someone know how to report last missed period. What would the consequence be of moving that forward by a couple of weeks to fall in the window if that was your best guess for when your period should have been? Who would question it when women's cycles have lots of natural variation?

This.

People on DCUM believe that you can refrain from getting pregnant, when in reality, the only sure way it to be abstinent.

[Anonymous]

Pregnancy and being a parent is a choice. Most of us didn't get paid maternity leave. We saved the leave we could over the years and went leave without pay via FLMA. To me its a huge sense of entitlement to get 6-24+ weeks off paid if your company doesn't offer it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of people out here fighting for the rights of employers to shit all over moms has me despairing that things will ever change. You all sound like Pick Me’s for capitalism.

OP this sucks and is super gross, but try not to let it overshadow your joy. Congratulations!

A “pick me” is a derogatory term. At some point, people have to recognize the world they live in and play by those rules instead of making themselves the victim.

If you are 35 and having intercourse, you could get pregnant. If you work for a company that offers voluntary short term disability, you should sign up because you might need it… not throw a fit and blame society when you fail to sign up for something and it becomes unavailable to you when you need it.

DP.

She shouldn’t have been denied because she didn’t know when she was pregnant. Denying it because they want to go back to a missed period of time of conception is predatory. As another PP said, pregnancy isn’t a pre existing condition, birth is, but not pregnancy.

Dads who get paternal leave don’t have to go through this….

So yes, the system can and absolutely be blamed. Do you know OP could’ve been denied even she had PCOS, previously had post partum depression, infertility issues? Plenty of women get denied even if they signed up on day 1. They look for a reason to deny you.

A voluntary short term disability policy is standardly written to have a 3/12 pre existing condition clause.

Meaning - if you enroll in the plan for January 1, 2026, and you have received treatment in the 3 months prior to the start date (so, Oct-Dec 2025), the plan will not pay out benefits for the first 12 months of coverage. If you get into an accident, no such condition applies.

Voluntary STD plans may also require you to submit an evidence of insurability form if you decline when first eligible and try to enroll at a later date.

This is why it is so important to understand the benefits offered to you, and if you don’t understand them, ask questions until you do.

It’s not picking on pregnancy, it’s a response to people like OP trying to avoid paying for something when they don’t need it. That goes for all conditions.

It’s also not expensive. I just did the math on my husband’s company’s voluntary STD plan, it is $15.50 a month for him to receive the max benefit of 60% of earnings (he maxes out at $1k a week in benefit) if something happens to him.

A man on PATERNITY leave is not subject to the rules of a short term disability leave because he is not disabled. Paid family bonding leave is a state benefit in roughly 1/3 of states; companies may also choose to offer a benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of people out here fighting for the rights of employers to shit all over moms has me despairing that things will ever change. You all sound like Pick Me’s for capitalism.

OP this sucks and is super gross, but try not to let it overshadow your joy. Congratulations!

A “pick me” is a derogatory term. At some point, people have to recognize the world they live in and play by those rules instead of making themselves the victim.

If you are 35 and having intercourse, you could get pregnant. If you work for a company that offers voluntary short term disability, you should sign up because you might need it… not throw a fit and blame society when you fail to sign up for something and it becomes unavailable to you when you need it.

DP.

She shouldn’t have been denied because she didn’t know when she was pregnant. Denying it because they want to go back to a missed period of time of conception is predatory. As another PP said, pregnancy isn’t a pre existing condition, birth is, but not pregnancy.

Dads who get paternal leave don’t have to go through this….

So yes, the system can and absolutely be blamed. Do you know OP could’ve been denied even she had PCOS, previously had post partum depression, infertility issues? Plenty of women get denied even if they signed up on day 1. They look for a reason to deny you.

A voluntary short term disability policy is standardly written to have a 3/12 pre existing condition clause.

Meaning - if you enroll in the plan for January 1, 2026, and you have received treatment in the 3 months prior to the start date (so, Oct-Dec 2025), the plan will not pay out benefits for the first 12 months of coverage. If you get into an accident, no such condition applies.

Voluntary STD plans may also require you to submit an evidence of insurability form if you decline when first eligible and try to enroll at a later date.

This is why it is so important to understand the benefits offered to you, and if you don’t understand them, ask questions until you do.

It’s not picking on pregnancy, it’s a response to people like OP trying to avoid paying for something when they don’t need it. That goes for all conditions.

It’s also not expensive. I just did the math on my husband’s company’s voluntary STD plan, it is $15.50 a month for him to receive the max benefit of 60% of earnings (he maxes out at $1k a week in benefit) if something happens to him.

A man on PATERNITY leave is not subject to the rules of a short term disability leave because he is not disabled. Paid family bonding leave is a state benefit in roughly 1/3 of states; companies may also choose to offer a benefit.

NP. The bolded is also why, as someone who'd like to see these benefits handled as a societal level, I don't have a ton of sympathy for OP. If we provided paid leave for new parents across the board (which I support), it would look like OP paying taxes for that benefit in all the years she wasn't pregnant, so that she could use it when she was. She was given precisely that offer at her job, and chose not to take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pregnancy and being a parent is a choice. Most of us didn't get paid maternity leave. We saved the leave we could over the years and went leave without pay via FLMA. To me its a huge sense of entitlement to get 6-24+ weeks off paid if your company doesn't offer it.

That’s right, lady! Pull those crabs down! #girlpower

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of people out here fighting for the rights of employers to shit all over moms has me despairing that things will ever change. You all sound like Pick Me’s for capitalism.

OP this sucks and is super gross, but try not to let it overshadow your joy. Congratulations!

A “pick me” is a derogatory term. At some point, people have to recognize the world they live in and play by those rules instead of making themselves the victim.

If you are 35 and having intercourse, you could get pregnant. If you work for a company that offers voluntary short term disability, you should sign up because you might need it… not throw a fit and blame society when you fail to sign up for something and it becomes unavailable to you when you need it.

DP.

She shouldn’t have been denied because she didn’t know when she was pregnant. Denying it because they want to go back to a missed period of time of conception is predatory. As another PP said, pregnancy isn’t a pre existing condition, birth is, but not pregnancy.

Dads who get paternal leave don’t have to go through this….

So yes, the system can and absolutely be blamed. Do you know OP could’ve been denied even she had PCOS, previously had post partum depression, infertility issues? Plenty of women get denied even if they signed up on day 1. They look for a reason to deny you.

A voluntary short term disability policy is standardly written to have a 3/12 pre existing condition clause.

Meaning - if you enroll in the plan for January 1, 2026, and you have received treatment in the 3 months prior to the start date (so, Oct-Dec 2025), the plan will not pay out benefits for the first 12 months of coverage. If you get into an accident, no such condition applies.

Voluntary STD plans may also require you to submit an evidence of insurability form if you decline when first eligible and try to enroll at a later date.

This is why it is so important to understand the benefits offered to you, and if you don’t understand them, ask questions until you do.

It’s not picking on pregnancy, it’s a response to people like OP trying to avoid paying for something when they don’t need it. That goes for all conditions.

It’s also not expensive. I just did the math on my husband’s company’s voluntary STD plan, it is $15.50 a month for him to receive the max benefit of 60% of earnings (he maxes out at $1k a week in benefit) if something happens to him.

A man on PATERNITY leave is not subject to the rules of a short term disability leave because he is not disabled. Paid family bonding leave is a state benefit in roughly 1/3 of states; companies may also choose to offer a benefit.

NP. The bolded is also why, as someone who'd like to see these benefits handled as a societal level, I don't have a ton of sympathy for OP. If we provided paid leave for new parents across the board (which I support), it would look like OP paying taxes for that benefit in all the years she wasn't pregnant, so that she could use it when she was. She was given precisely that offer at her job, and chose not to take it.

This. It's a variant of adverse selection, whereby some people like OP only pay for coverage when they are high-risk insureds - insureds who are likely to file a claim. That throws the actuarial model for insurance out of whack, leads to increased premiums, and most importantly for OP's purposes, leaves open the potential for misjudging when the coverage will be required and missing out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of people out here fighting for the rights of employers to shit all over moms has me despairing that things will ever change. You all sound like Pick Me’s for capitalism.

OP this sucks and is super gross, but try not to let it overshadow your joy. Congratulations!

Can two things be true? Can we fight for better benefits and also plan appropriately for the benefits we currently have?

I didn’t opt into short term disability because my policy had a 10 month waiting period for pregnancy. I then calculated how much it would pay out vs. how much I would have to pay in and realized by two years it wouldn’t cost more than it would pay out.

I also knew how to cover my maternity leave so I saved leave to cover it. I signed up for benefits that I researched and made sure worked for me. At the same time I am also a loud advocate for increasing the amount of paid leave my organization offers.

I also choose to work at a lower paying job because it has better benefits. I chose to stay at a job I didn’t like because it had better benefits.

+1 I made the mistake of signing up for STD knowing we wanted to have a kid. Couple years of fertility struggles and by the time I gave birth the payout was less than what I paid in.

Better to just put away some money every month rather than sign up for these policies.

An STD plan doesn't work financially if people can sign up when they know they are trying to get pregnant.

I fully support employers giving paid leave to new parents. STD is not that - it is an insurance product.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ no one finds out they are pregnant at their doctors appointment. It sounds like you knew you were pregnant, signed up for a short-term disability, delayed your doctors appointment a few weeks and are trying to get sympathy for attempting to game the system. You knew your company did not offer short-term disability. And you got pregnant knowing this and thought you could just sign up before it came to light. I mean it stinks for sure but I also understand the insurance company’s point of view

8 weeks. I took a pregnancy test on 11/1, but because they go off missed period (October 25) or time of conception (October 10-11), I don't qualify/

You clearly know nothing about prenatal care. They won't even see you until you're at least 8 weeks to confirm if you're pregnant, so no, I didn't hold off until then. I'm due July 4th, so both my missed period AND conception were a few days to a few weeks before open enrollment.

There was no way for me to know I was going to be pregnant around the time of open enrollment. Unless open enrollment had been in September, there was no way for me to qualify for short-term disability.

You didn't understand there could be consequences of pregnancy in both protected and unprotected intercourse?! You knew the dates for open enrollment enrollment and a smart woman would have abstained from intercourse during that time period so she would be eligible for open enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is it either STD *or* maternity leave? Will you not be eligible for ML at all as a contractor? I'm having a truly hard time understanding.

While I understand that some people impeccably plan expanding their families, other people just "turn up pregnant." When the time comes, they have maternity leave or create something from leave / unpaid/ whatever.

Has no contractor at your company ever been pregnant? Is there anyone you can ask about their experience? I hope you get it all sorted.

I WFH on a specific assignment for a large company, so I have no colleagues to consult with, however, I’m trying to work with my HR now. My contract was only supposed to be 3 months but now it’s going on two years.

When I enrolled/started in July 2024 I wasn’t even dating my fiance, we had just been friends for many years. Given my age (34 at the time I first enrolled), the short duration of my contract, single with 0 prospects, and no desire for a relationship because of grief I didn’t even
think getting pregnant was a possibility… Heck I didn’t even see the point in enrolling period because I thought I wouldn’t be there long

Gee, did you ever think that if he were your husband, instead of your fiance, that you would be covered under his insurance! Choices have consequences!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:is it either STD *or* maternity leave? Will you not be eligible for ML at all as a contractor? I'm having a truly hard time understanding.

While I understand that some people impeccably plan expanding their families, other people just "turn up pregnant." When the time comes, they have maternity leave or create something from leave / unpaid/ whatever.

Has no contractor at your company ever been pregnant? Is there anyone you can ask about their experience? I hope you get it all sorted.

I WFH on a specific assignment for a large company, so I have no colleagues to consult with, however, I’m trying to work with my HR now. My contract was only supposed to be 3 months but now it’s going on two years.

When I enrolled/started in July 2024 I wasn’t even dating my fiance, we had just been friends for many years. Given my age (34 at the time I first enrolled), the short duration of my contract, single with 0 prospects, and no desire for a relationship because of grief I didn’t even
think getting pregnant was a possibility… Heck I didn’t even see the point in enrolling period because I thought I wouldn’t be there long

I get it. However, pregnancy is not the only reason to pay into short term disability. Consider that things in life could change at any moment and then plan accordingly.

Right. That’s why I said because my contract was only supposed to be 3 months I didn’t see the need.

But now you've been there two years and you still didn't see the need for STD? Unbelievable!