Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

upnorth

ACA before and after

1,375 posts in this topic

5 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

 

So explain why the military goes to such pains to make sure high tech equipment doesn't fall into enemy hands if the tech is being sold to both sides.

 

 

 

OK - explain why healthcare providers are increasingly opting out of Medicare and Medicaid, and preferring private insurance.  

The government isn't pushing the providers to do it better - they are pushing them to do it cheaper, and the providers are pushing back by going to more private insurance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like Hillary said- they have a public and a private position on the first paragraph.

 

Insurance in some cases must be more lucrative than the feds. Both will reimburse at a higher price point than joe bag of donuts working the graveyard shift at the local choke and puke if he is paying out of pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

18 minutes ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Insurance in some cases must be more lucrative than the feds. Both will reimburse at a higher price point than joe bag of donuts working the graveyard shift at the local choke and puke if he is paying out of pocket.

 

Insurance must be more lucrative in most cases if you look at the numbers of providers opting out.  Also, most Medicare patients also find it necessary to purchase private insurance to supplement their Medicare.

 

(I was in the process of editing my previous post when you posted, so I'll re-post this addition to my previous post.)

 

The government isn't pushing the providers to do it better - they are pushing them to do it cheaper, and the providers are pushing back by going to more private insurance.

 

So to take it a step further, supporters of the single payer system are of the belief that if there were no insurance companies involved, the government could dictate prices to the providers, thereby reducing the cost of healthcare.

 

But what is most likely to happen in a single payer system is the real world will come into play, and providers will simply cut back on services.

 

But to get back to the innovation perspective, I believe as many innovations came about in the medical field before the government got so deeply involved with healthcare as after, if not more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by swamptiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

 

So explain why the military goes to such pains to make sure high tech equipment doesn't fall into enemy hands if the tech is being sold to both sides.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We sell allies and countries that suit our interests, stripped down/lower block avionic fighters.  If something is deemed important enough to be USA only, it stays that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SledNeck said:

 

We sell allies and countries that suit our interests, stripped down/lower block avionic fighters.  If something is deemed important enough to be USA only, it stays that way.

 

Yes, pretty sure PF knows that, too...;)

25 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

Insurance must be more lucrative in most cases if you look at the numbers of providers opting out.  Also, most Medicare patients also find it necessary to purchase private insurance to supplement their Medicare.

 

 

So if you can agree with this, then it really shouldn't be much of a puzzle to figure out why the healthcare industry is lobbying so heavily for mandatory insurance.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well duh. In the end whether it's mandated or optional doesn't really matter when they are at the table helping to write the rules while Joe bagofdonuts who will be paying for it is sitting silently in the living room watching Hannity, Maddow or Wolf. 

Edited by PurpleFloyd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Money. If a company can get paid handsomely by either the government or insurance then it makes sense to invest in developing things they will pay for. 

 

Companies would be paid handsomely for unique innovations either way only in a true free market situation the innovation focus would be on "affordable" technology and treatment options. Right now there is plenty of incentive for "expensive" technology because Insurance companies are content to extract vast amounts of money from the general public to pay for this over-priced technology, procedures and drugs. If the focus of the market would be consumer centered instead of insurance centered you would see a large shift to affordability with many more choices.

 

11 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

 

A key example is military contractors. There are very few companies competing openly for the military tech because it is very complex but the co.panies know the government will pay them handsomely for making things that kill people. You can make an argument that they award contracts based on low bid but the reality is there are a very small number of companies who are able to bid on planes, ships, missiles etc. 

 

The problem with this analogy is the lack of consumers. The tech companies have a captive audience with very few consumers. They are basically creating custom products for one buyer. That's not even close to being the same as the healthcare market. 

 

This is what you get anytime you put too many restrictions on a free market.

swamptiger likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Well duh. In the end whether it's mandated or optional doesn't really matter when they are at the table helping to write the rules while Joe bagofdonuts who will be paying for it is sitting silently in the living room watching Hannity, Maddow or Wolf. 

 

True - that's the biggest problem with government supported monopolies - they have consumers right by the short hairs.

 

That is also why I'm not optimistic about any real change in the upcoming legislation, although there does appear to be some considerable pushback on what is currently being proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

 Joe bagofdonuts

 

Candid admission...

 

I had to look that one up.

 

Gary-Johnson-800x430.jpg

 

:)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

 

We do have Sarah Palin in our corner....  She has dubbed Ryan's proposal "RINO-care"....

 

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/11/exclusive-palin-paul-ryans-rino-care-socialized-medicine-president-trump-will-step-in-fix/

 

 

 

“This 30 percent additional fee will be collected by some in the private sector, which will mean politicians are allowed again to pick the winners and losers, and it makes you wonder who’s lobbying hardest for aspects of this new bill because obviously there are special interests involved. Otherwise, certain private sector segments of our economy wouldn’t be rewarded as they will be with this fee, instead of going to the IRS going to private companies,” Palin said. “It would be really helpful if every single one of these politicians would do like the NASCAR drivers do—and it’s been said before—but let them wear their sponsors plastered all over their three-piece suits when they show up so we know what side they’re on and who they’re actually doing their bidding for.”

 

 

Edited by swamptiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Uncle Bill said:

 

Candid admission...

 

I had to look that one up.

 

Gary-Johnson-800x430.jpg

 

:)

 

I appreciate the effort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

“It would be really helpful if every single one of these politicians would do like the NASCAR drivers do—and it’s been said before—but let them wear their sponsors plastered all over their three-piece suits when they show up so we know what side they’re on and who they’re actually doing their bidding for.”   Sarah Palin

 

 

This is actually one of the best ideas I've ever seen for political reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, swamptiger said:

  “It would be really helpful if every single one of these politicians would do like the NASCAR drivers do—and it’s been said before—but let them wear their sponsors plastered all over their three-piece suits when they show up so we know what side they’re on and who they’re actually doing their bidding for.”   Sarah Palin

 

 

 

80-1dbqlmyexaly_77e3dc02ade51fa82b4955bc

 

There you go, swampy.. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here you go, Uncle Ben.... 

 

Paul Ryan:

 

ContributorTotalIndivsPACs

Northwestern Mutual$258,360$166,360$92,000

Blue Cross/Blue Shield$144,250$48,250$96,000

Bank of America$132,944$84,944$48,000

Koch Industries$130,422$42,422$88,000

National Assn of Home Builders$102,200$700$101,500

National Beer Wholesalers Assn$100,500$3,000$97,500

National Assn of Insurance & Financial Advisors$100,000$0$100,000

Abbott Laboratories$99,300$25,050$74,250

FedEx Corp$97,100$33,600$63,500

AT&T Inc$96,230$7,730$88,500

National Auto Dealers Assn$93,500$0$93,500

Pfizer Inc$93,205$54,705$38,500

USAA$90,620$47,120$43,500

Credit Suisse Group$89,325$21,825$67,500

American Hospital Assn$82,836$43,936$38,900

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance$81,885$10,885$71,000

Investment Co Institute$78,999$5,500$73,499

Carlyle Group$78,000$54,000$24,000

Blackstone Group$76,700$74,200$2,500

JPMorgan Chase & Co$76,475$17,475$59,000

 

 

no big surprises here....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swamptiger said:

And here you go, Uncle Ben.... 

 

Paul Ryan:

 

ContributorTotalIndivsPACs

Northwestern Mutual$258,360$166,360$92,000

Blue Cross/Blue Shield$144,250$48,250$96,000

Bank of America$132,944$84,944$48,000

Koch Industries$130,422$42,422$88,000

National Assn of Home Builders$102,200$700$101,500

National Beer Wholesalers Assn$100,500$3,000$97,500

National Assn of Insurance & Financial Advisors$100,000$0$100,000

Abbott Laboratories$99,300$25,050$74,250

FedEx Corp$97,100$33,600$63,500

AT&T Inc$96,230$7,730$88,500

National Auto Dealers Assn$93,500$0$93,500

Pfizer Inc$93,205$54,705$38,500

USAA$90,620$47,120$43,500

Credit Suisse Group$89,325$21,825$67,500

American Hospital Assn$82,836$43,936$38,900

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance$81,885$10,885$71,000

Investment Co Institute$78,999$5,500$73,499

Carlyle Group$78,000$54,000$24,000

Blackstone Group$76,700$74,200$2,500

JPMorgan Chase & Co$76,475$17,475$59,000

 

 

no big surprises here....

If you ain't first-hand you're last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the same donors and people still think these parties are different? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Uncle Bill said:

 

Candid admission...

 

I had to look that one up.

 

:)

 

 

I guess they don't use that one on Fox News, huh? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article138964428.html

 

Venezuela has a bread shortage. The government has decided bakers are the problem.

Facing a bread shortage that is spawning massive lines and souring the national mood, the Venezuelan government is responding this week by detaining bakers and seizing establishments.

In a press release, the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights said it had charged four people and temporarily seized two bakeries as the socialist administration accused bakers of being part of a broad “economic war” aimed at destabilizing the country.

 

In a statement, the government said the bakers had been selling underweight bread and were using price-regulated flour to illegally make specialty items, like sweet rolls and croissants.

The government said bakeries are only allowed to produce French bread and white loaves, or pan canilla, with government-imported flour. However, in a tweet on Thursday, price control czar William Contreras said only 90 percent of baked goods had to be price-controlled products.

 

Two bakeries were also seized for 90 days for breaking a number of rules, including selling overpriced bread.


(more)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article138964428.html

 

Venezuela has a bread shortage. The government has decided bakers are the problem.

Facing a bread shortage that is spawning massive lines and souring the national mood, the Venezuelan government is responding this week by detaining bakers and seizing establishments.

In a press release, the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights said it had charged four people and temporarily seized two bakeries as the socialist administration accused bakers of being part of a broad “economic war” aimed at destabilizing the country.

 

In a statement, the government said the bakers had been selling underweight bread and were using price-regulated flour to illegally make specialty items, like sweet rolls and croissants.

The government said bakeries are only allowed to produce French bread and white loaves, or pan canilla, with government-imported flour. However, in a tweet on Thursday, price control czar William Contreras said only 90 percent of baked goods had to be price-controlled products.

 

Two bakeries were also seized for 90 days for breaking a number of rules, including selling overpriced bread.


(more)

Probably time to send over some troops and start killing them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PurpleFloyd said:

Probably time to send over some troops and start killing them

 

 

Probably delcecchi's attempt at showing that the gov't can actually fix problems in a market that they themselves have messed up in the first place.....;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

13 hours ago, delcecchi said:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article138964428.html

 

Venezuela has a bread shortage. The government has decided bakers are the problem.

Facing a bread shortage that is spawning massive lines and souring the national mood, the Venezuelan government is responding this week by detaining bakers and seizing establishments.

In a press release, the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights said it had charged four people and temporarily seized two bakeries as the socialist administration accused bakers of being part of a broad “economic war” aimed at destabilizing the country.

 

In a statement, the government said the bakers had been selling underweight bread and were using price-regulated flour to illegally make specialty items, like sweet rolls and croissants.

The government said bakeries are only allowed to produce French bread and white loaves, or pan canilla, with government-imported flour. However, in a tweet on Thursday, price control czar William Contreras said only 90 percent of baked goods had to be price-controlled products.

 

Two bakeries were also seized for 90 days for breaking a number of rules, including selling overpriced bread.


(more)


One bad example of government might make you feel better about this country but it really shouldn't. In our version the gov works for the breadmakers so they can make huge profits and flood DC with $$$ to keep their cozy setup with limited competition and subsidized flour.

Edited by Bear55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, delcecchi said:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article138964428.html

 

Venezuela has a bread shortage. The government has decided bakers are the problem.

Facing a bread shortage that is spawning massive lines and souring the national mood, the Venezuelan government is responding this week by detaining bakers and seizing establishments.

In a press release, the National Superintendent for the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights said it had charged four people and temporarily seized two bakeries as the socialist administration accused bakers of being part of a broad “economic war” aimed at destabilizing the country.

 

In a statement, the government said the bakers had been selling underweight bread and were using price-regulated flour to illegally make specialty items, like sweet rolls and croissants.

The government said bakeries are only allowed to produce French bread and white loaves, or pan canilla, with government-imported flour. However, in a tweet on Thursday, price control czar William Contreras said only 90 percent of baked goods had to be price-controlled products.

 

Two bakeries were also seized for 90 days for breaking a number of rules, including selling overpriced bread.


(more)

 

"The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."

Ronald Reagan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2017 at 7:29 PM, tacklejunkie said:

 

"The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan."

Ronald Reagan

 

Government run bakeries - sounds like another great dumb collectivist idea...

 

Remember the Soviet Union's experiment with collectivist farming?

 

The 1980s posed many challenges for the everyday lives of the average citizens of East Europe countries, including daily difficulties created from shortages. Buying such necessities as food, clothing, and hygiene products was recurring obstacle to the average consumer. Food shortages were the result of declining agricultural production, which particularly plagued the Soviet Union. This chart reflects the widespread underproduction throughout the Soviet Republics. Only Ukraine, Belorussia, and Kazakhstan produced a surplus. The most populous republic, Russia, was dependent on imports of all food categories in order to reach subsistence level. While these statistics are from 1991, the CIA estimated that production was only a small percentage (5.4%) below its average throughout the 1980s. In other words, the Soviet Union never produced sufficient food to feed itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2017 at 9:26 PM, delcecchi said:

 

So you are claiming the companies that "lost money" didn't actually lose money?   And they stopped offering profitable policies (allegedly profitable) for political reasons?  

 

Whoa dude.  That's some weird stuff you are coming up with.  

Well you also assume that all companies are created equal.  There are some that are sticking with it and if you hypothesis is correct, they are bleeding money at this very moment.  

 

Folks tend to think that just because one or more companies can't make money at something at this time no one is.  I am going to go out on a limb and say there is most likely some differences in administration of plans that are sold on the Exchanges and those that are sold completely on the open market.  I am also going to assume that some companies that are still in the Exchanges have set themselves up better to handle the differences in administering these plans on the Exchanges.  

 

If every company was always managed and administered the same would still see Edsels, Studebakers, Willys Jeep and Oldsmobile cars being manufactured and sold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You Have the Alzheimer’s Gene? GOP Wants Your Boss to Know

Republicans derided Obamacare as the nanny state. But if this GOP bill on genetic testing passes, we’ll be living in the Orwell state.

ELEANOR CLIFT

 

The health and wellness programs that proliferated under Obamacare as a way to help people quit smoking, start exercising, and develop healthy habits, could take a disturbingly intrusive turn under a Republican bill that would require employees to undergo genetic testing to see what diseases you carry in your genes—and allow employers to see the results—or face a financial penalty.

If Obamacare is nanny state, the GOP bill, “Preserving Employer Wellness Programs,” is Big Brother, potentially sanctioning an alarming misuse of medical information. There are not that many identifiable genetic markers yet, but there will be more in the future. If you carry the breast cancer gene, or the one for cystic fibrosis or Alzheimer’s, how would you feel about sharing that information with an employer?

The legislation, H.R. 1313, is a notable departure from traditional Republican thinking about privacy, reflecting instead the GOP’s intent to purge regulations that might in their view impede sound business decisions.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/20/you-have-the-alzheimer-s-gene-gop-wants-your-boss-to-know.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the summary from the Congressional Research service.  

 

Quote

Summary: H.R.1313 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

There is one summary for H.R.1313. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (03/02/2017)

Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act

This bill exempts workplace wellness programs from: (1) limitations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 on medical examinations and inquiries of employees, (2) the prohibition on collecting genetic information in connection with issuing health insurance, and (3) limitations under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 on collecting the genetic information of employees or family members of employees. This exemption applies to workplace wellness programs that comply with limits on rewards for employees participating in the program.

Workplace wellness programs may provide for more favorable treatment of individuals with adverse health factors, such as a disability.

Collection of information about a disease or disorder of a family member as part of a workplace wellness program is not an unlawful acquisition of genetic information about another family member.

 

Here is the text of the bill.  I don't trust Eleanor Clift to accurately summarize it.  

 

Quote

115th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 1313

 

To clarify rules relating to nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 2, 2017

Ms. Foxx (for herself and Mr. Walberg) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To clarify rules relating to nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act”.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress finds that—

 

(1) Congress has a strong tradition of protecting and preserving employee workplace wellness programs, including programs that utilize a health risk assessment, biometric screening, or other resources to inform and empower employees in making healthier lifestyle choices;

 

(2) health promotion and prevention programs are a means to reduce the burden of chronic illness, improve health, and limit the growth of health care costs;

 

(3) in enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148), Congress intended that employers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements related to wellness programs, including rewards of up to 50 percent off of insurance premiums for employees participating in programs designed to encourage healthier lifestyle choices; and

 

(4) Congress has struck an appropriate balance among employees, health care providers, and wellness plan sponsors to protect individual privacy and confidentiality in a wellness program which is designed to improve health outcomes.

SEC. 3. Nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs.

 

(a) Uniformity across Federal agencies.—

(1) PROGRAMS OFFERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH PLAN.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan that meet the requirements set forth in subparagraph (B) shall be considered to be in compliance with—

(i) the acceptable examinations and inquiries set forth in section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B));

(ii) section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d)); and

(iii) section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff–1(b)(2)).

(B) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—The requirements referenced in subparagraph (A) are that—

(i) the programs described in such subparagraph comply with section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j));

(ii) any reward provided or offered by a program described in such subparagraph shall be less than or equal to the maximum reward amounts provided for by section 2705(j)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A)), regardless of whether such programs are otherwise subject to such limitations; and

(iii) the programs described in such subparagraph comply with any regulations promulgated with respect to section 2705(j) of such Act by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury.

(C) SAFE HARBOR.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, section 501(c)(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201(c)(2)) shall apply to workplace wellness programs or programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan.

(2) OTHER PROGRAMS OFFERING MORE FAVORABLE TREATMENT FOR ADVERSE HEALTH FACTORS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer that provide for more favorable treatment of individuals with adverse health factors as described in 45 CFR 146.121(g) (or any successor regulations) shall be considered to be in compliance with—

(A) the acceptable examinations and inquiries set forth in section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B));

(B) section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d)); and

(C) section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff–1(b)(2)).

(3) PROGRAMS NOT OFFERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH PLAN.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, workplace wellness programs and programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer that are not offered in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan that are not described in section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)) that meet the requirement set forth in subparagraph (B) shall be considered to be in compliance with—

(i) the acceptable examinations and inquiries as set forth in section 102(d)(4)(B) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(B));

(ii) section 2705(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(d)); and

(iii) section 202(b)(2) of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 2000ff–1(b)(2)).

(B) LIMITATION ON REWARDS.—The requirement referenced in subparagraph (A) is that any reward provided or offered by a program described in such subparagraph shall be less than or equal to the maximum reward amounts provided for by section 2705(j)(3)(A) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j)(3)(A)), and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury.

 

(b) Collection of information.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information with respect to another family member as part of a workplace wellness program described in paragraph (1) or (2) offered by an employer (or in conjunction with an employer-sponsored health plan described in section 2705(j) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–4(j))) and shall not violate title I or title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–233). For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term “family member” has the meaning given such term in section 201 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Public Law 110–233).

 

(c) Rule of construction.—Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer that is offering a wellness program to an employee from requiring such employee, within 45 days from the date the employee first has an opportunity to earn a reward, to request a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard). Nothing in subsection (a)(1)(A) shall be construed to prevent an employer from imposing a reasonable time period, based upon all the facts and circumstances, during which the employee must complete the reasonable alternative standard. Such a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) is provided for in section 2705(j)(3)(D) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 gg–4(j)(3)(D)) (and any regulations promulgated with respect to such section by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or the Secretary of the Treasury).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now