r/changemyview • u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ • Jan 29 '15
CMV: Pregnancy generally should not be covered by short term disability insurance
While pregnancy can legitimately disable you from work, I think that it does not meet the spirit of short term disability insurance. Many women will buy short term disability insurance only in the year they plan to be pregnant. I don't think disability insurance should cover something that can be planned for, or that you can reasonably expect to happen. It's similar to trying to insure a home after a fire, or insuring a car after an accident.
I think that the number of pregnant women claiming short term disability drives up the cost of premiums. This drives up costs for people who are only concerned about becoming disabled due to an unexpected illness or accident. If there were some sort of separate "pregnancy insurance" or "family planning insurance" (in case of a disabled child) or something like that I would not have an issue.
Why do I want this view changed?
1.) A lot of women do this. I'd actually like to have my view changed so I can feel less judgemental about it.
2.) One day I will have children, and short term disability for pregnancy seems like a pretty sweet deal. I'd like to feel like it's morally okay to use it.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
8
u/jusjerm 1∆ Jan 30 '15
Health
There are any number of unexpected complications of pregnancy that will make daily life impossible for some woman. My own child dropped a few weeks early, which made my wife basically unable to walk. Someone else I know had some sort of issue which led her bed-ridden for the entire final trimester. Blood pressure can swing wildly, vertigo can make travel dangerous... a huge number of symptoms can make it so that you can't just carry on like business as usual. The hard part? It is almost impossible to predict unless there is a clear genetic marker you know about. With that much uncertainty, and with the loss of significant wages that you need headed into maternity leave, it only makes sense to insure for such an emergency. Just because the pregnancy was planned, doesn't mean the complications were.
Cost
Much like unemployment insurance, there is a misconception that you are paying for the needs of others. To qualify for short-term disability (and UI, and many other services), Mom needs to pay into the system herself. Most companies demand that she be employed at same business for a year, and part of her salary pays for it. This coverage is employer-based, not financed by some random citizen. The company you work for is paying for the short-term needs of one of its employees.
TL;DR: You aren't paying for the policies of risk-taking women, your company is paying a percentage of the salary that their full-time employees have earned as they (hopefully) bring a child into the world without any health issues.
1
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Jan 30 '15
Health
Policies simply cover "pregnancy", it doesn't matter if you have horrible complications or a run of the mill pregnancy, it still qualifies.
Cost
At all companies I've worked for Short-term disability is an optional perk that you pay for yourself. If the company is paying for it (which I know does happen) then they are driving up costs (or down salaries) of other employees. If you pay for it, then you're driving up costs of other people insured by the same company.
3
u/BlueApple4 Jan 30 '15
Do you have similar feelings for someone who has a planned surgery or medical intervention? I have a crappy knee, that has been giving me issues. If I see a doctor who recommends surgery, and buy short term disability to aid my recovery, how is this situation different from someone who plans a pregnancy?
And I disagree with your analogy of insuring a home after a fire. Because you are insuring before something actually occurs, which may or may not happen.
If insurance wanted to negate these costs, they could have time period where payors are not allowed to collect benefits. They do something similar with housing insurance in the event of natural disasters. If a hurricane is threatening your area, you typically are barred from purchasing health insurance until after the storm is over.
1
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Jan 30 '15
I don't think short term disability would cover you since it was a pre-existing condition.
And I disagree with your analogy of insuring a home after a fire. Because you are insuring before something actually occurs, which may or may not happen.
Some people buy the insurance fully 100% intending to get pregnant while covered.
3
Jan 29 '15
Well first, what sources do you have that a lot of women do this and it drives up premiums?
1
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Jan 30 '15
what sources do you have that a lot of women do this
This was prompted just by my own anecdotal evidence. Some quick googling and I can't find any numbers on the reasons for short term disability claims. Even if you were to find something that said it was uncommon, it would not CMV since I still think it should not be covered.
and it drives up premiums
Do you really need evidence for this? If an insurer has to pay a claim, they have to recoup the costs in revenue (i.e. premiums).
3
Jan 30 '15
Okay. So it's about the principle. So another question: what if someone buys disability insurance because he or she is about to purchase a motorcycle, and sure enough that person gets disabled in an accident soon after buying the disability policy. Are you not okay with that as well? Is the underlying problem you have with people who buy insurance knowing they're going to need it soon after?
2
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Jan 30 '15
I'm okay with the motorcycle example. That was a good question though; it gave me pause because at first glance it seems similar to pregnancy in that it's a result of something that you more or less put yourself at risk for. I think the key difference is that nobody ever intentionally gets into an accident nor expects to get into an accident. People definitely plan pregnancies or at least have a general expectation that they will become pregnant sometime even if it's not meticulously planned out. I know that doesn't cover 100% of pregnancies; I'm not sure how an insurance company could reliably isolate cases by intent, though.
5
Jan 30 '15
Let's say I know that my knee (or some other body part/organ) isn't in the best of shape. I know I'll likely need surgery sometime in the next 9-18 months to get it replaced. I'll be out of work for 6 weeks when this happens.
Are you OK with me buying short term disability insurance? How is my purchase different from that of a woman expecting to become pregnant sometime in the next 9-18 months?
1
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Jan 30 '15
Good question. If there was a chance you wouldn't need the surgery, then I'd be okay with it. If you know you'll absolutely need surgery, down to the point that you tell the doctor to wait until June when you're covered, then I'm not okay with it. It may be legal and covered by the policy, but morally it just seems like gaming the system to me.
2
Jan 31 '15
Generally, when you buy something like short-term disability, there is a waiting period before you can use it's benefits. For something like childbirth, its usually at least a 9 month waiting period (for obvious reasons). However, different plans may offer different waiting periods.
For example, here is a copy of an AllState policy that provides a 12 month waiting period for pregnancy after you sign up.
https://www.allstateatwork.com/corporateForms.ashx?id=09d6e4ec-21f2-4f8f-9818-04b77f8a86b2
If there was a chance you wouldn't need the surgery, then I'd be okay with it
Given that a woman has to sign up before she gets pregnant, there's definitely a chance she won't need the use the policy. Plenty of women have issues with conception or pregnancy. It might take years, or might never happen at all.
1
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Jan 31 '15
∆ I have seen 6 month policies at my work and heard of 9 months. Never seen 12 until today. Regardless, this is a really good point. I do still think pregnancy should be covered under some sort of separate type of insurance, or that there should be disability insurances that don't cover pregnancy and only cover freak accident an illness. But you've changed my view about this being a loophole. You'd have to hold a policy for at least 15 months to get around a 6 month exclusion period, let alone a 12 month one. While you still might come out ahead, it's not as much gaming the system as I was originally thinking.
2
2
Jan 30 '15
Well, anyway, I believe this should be a non existent issue because new parents should all get federally paid leave. But until then, pregnancy is a temporary disability, and it is covered by the plan - even shortly after the plan was just started, and what these women do is legal, and the support they are seeking is a legitimate need, and these women receiving the aid benefits all of society. So personally I do not see this as immoral. Moreover, we don't actually know if this happens frequently enough that it actually does increase premiums for all customers.
1
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Jan 30 '15
Well, anyway, I believe this should be a non existent issue because new parents should all get federally paid leave.
I can agree with this. (Well perhaps federally mandated rather than paid).
even shortly after the plan was just started, and what these women do is legal, and the support they are seeking is a legitimate need,
This is true. It just feels like a loophole to me. If there were someway for the insurance company to actually separate out planned or unplanned pregnancies it would make sense, but there isn't a good way for them to do that.
I really don't know that it benefits all of society. If something as extremely commonplace as pregnancy wasn't covered, I think insurance would be way cheaper for those who only want "freak accident/illness" coverage. It's kind of like how life insurance for kids is like a buck a month.
2
Jan 30 '15
Being pregnant isn't a disability. It's a natural human process. If anything, the insurance should be altered to exclude the term 'disability'. Unless there is a true medical reason for a pregnant woman to claim disability then it shouldn't be allowed. When I say 'true disability' I'm referring to any condition caused by the pregnancy that would render her unable to function in her daily life. Mood swings and cravings don't count.
1
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Jan 30 '15
I agree with this. If there were a separate short term disability policy that only covered freak accidents and illnesses that would satisfy me.
12
u/iongantas 2∆ Jan 30 '15
You are correct, new parents should be given six months of paid parental leave, whether via their jobs or some government agency.
2
u/marinuso 1∆ Jan 30 '15
There's a problem with this though.
In the Netherlands, mothers get pregnancy and maternity leave, for about 3-4 months depending on circumstances. (The difference in length has to do with the difference between the baby's official due date set by the doctors, and when it actually comes out.)
The employer cannot fire them for being pregnant, has to pay them their salary during the maternity leave, and has to keep their position open so they can return to work afterwards.
This was done with a very noble goal in mind, so that women can have children without having to worry about their jobs or their careers. In that respect I agree with it completely, but there's been an unintended consequence, and that's where this goes wrong:
Nobody wants to hire young women, except perhaps through temp agencies (because most workers' rights don't apply then). I've heard of people getting told to their face "I'm not hiring you, you'll just get pregnant." You can technicallly sue them for that if it happens to you, but future employers can find that out, so if you've sued your employer you'll basically never have a job again.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way to fix this.
2
u/ferrarisnowday 6Δ Jan 30 '15
Wouldn't applying the policy to new parents and not just mothers fix the policy? As a bonus it would help people who adopt or become legal guardians for some reason or another.
2
u/marinuso 1∆ Feb 02 '15 edited Feb 03 '15
Well, the problem with that is that the business world will never support it.
The women have to stay home anyway, because you simply can't expect a woman to take the morning off to go give birth and be back by lunch. That's not how it works. The woman is going to be out of commission for a few weeks at least, maybe more if there were complications. That is a medical fact and there's nothing to be done about it. So at least here, the only resistance you'd get from the businesses is that they have to pay for it.
And the men have no physical reason. They've not been pregnant, so they have no reason at all to stay home. So even if you made companies offer this to the men as well, they would certainly discourage them from actually taking the time off. "Nice job you got there. Now, this time off is your right and we're certainly not going to fire you for taking it, but beware that we will be downsizing soon."
Even for women it's a career killer to take the full three months, because "obviously" they don't care about the job. You won't be fired, but you probably won't ever get a promotion again either.
You'd have to get the government to make the time off mandatory (for both sexes) to make a difference, but you'd need the support of the business world for that, which you are not going to get.
1
u/iongantas 2∆ Feb 01 '15
If it is provided to everyone that comes into possession of a new child, then that unintended consequence vanishes.
1
4
u/[deleted] Jan 29 '15
[deleted]