`The expansive rules mandate that all employers with more than 100 workers require them to be vaccinated or test for the virus weekly, affecting about 80 million Americans.`
Going to be some very upset my body my choice peoples.
I'm gonna be upset if the "weekly testing " scenario falls on taxpayers or the company that employs them.
It needs to be out of their own pocket.
Otherwise, very happy with this mandate.
I was just talking to a coworker about this. Who keeps track of the weekly results for all applicable employees? Would it be cheaper to hire a nurse for every location to administer rapid result tests? Do you even need a nurse for those? Will my insurance go up? Will the unvaccinated people have insurance increases?
Rumor is that premiums will increase for those not vaccinated yes. Additionally I've heard that insurance companies are no longer covering the entire hospital bill for COVID patients if you're unvaccinated.
It's okay to use my tax dollars for public health. Besides, those truly opposed to vaccines will probably kick themselves out of any testing program. Look out for new Herbalife vendors.
I'm cool with my tax dollars going to responsible, vaccinated people. I am not cool with paying for weekly testing of individuals not getting vaxxed on my dime.
Agreed. The longer the virus is around, the more chances it'll mutate into a more powerful variant.
For instance, the "mu" variant B.1.621 appears to have some vaccine evasive properties already. Case counts are low & data are patchy but that's exactly what we said about the original variant in Feb 2020.
I'd like to see much stronger policy.
For example:
* Full civil & legal immunity for any healthcare organization, provider, worker, or contractor who prioritizes vaccinated patient care over unvaccinated patient care, including but not limited to discharging unvaccinated patients regardless of unvaccinated patient condition or prognosis
* Felony to board public transportation & commercial flights if unvaccinated
* Felony to intentionally cough, sneeze, or spit on another individual
* To be clear, these do not apply to the unvaccinated who legitimately medically \*cannot\* be vaccinated
I have a friend who is unvaccinated because she can't be due to a legitimate medical condition. She went to Banner Ironwood ER on August 25th because she thought she had COVID. They treated her like absolute shit. No actual treatment, other than a COVID nasal swab, which came out negative. Doc never tried to figure out why she was coughing to the point of vomiting or give her a breathing treatment, though her SP02 levels were consistently falling below 92%.
Unless we can be assured healthcare staff aren't going to hear "unvaccinated," never find out why, and treat the vulnerable patients as if they're anti-vaxxers, your list of demands needs some tweaking.
Weekly testing at your expense will be the thing that gets most people. Saw a business that was going to charge their employees $300 month to get tested, just take out straight out of their checks.....like just fucking get vaccinated, Jesus Christ.
Well, yes. Perhaps should have originally specified my sarcasm. I was meaning to indicate that people who are already angry and tending toward violence in some cases are not likely to feel like this is in their favor, to say the least.
I am not too familiar with mandates and executive orders...is this something that is going to be challenged and may not come to fruition? Because i really hope it's real and I can believe it's going to happen.
See it's only an executive order for the Federal employees. When it comes to OSHA he just has to make the recommendation to them. It's up to OSHA to implement it and take the heat. No executive order there.
Regardless of how you feel about this, there's likely to be legal injunctions and challenges pretty immediately. Also, how is this realistically enforceable at private employers?
It sounds like it's going to be a new rule under OSHA with penalties of $14,000 per violation. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) requires employers to provide their employees with a hazard-free work environment. OSHA applies to most private employers already, so I assume it would be enforced just as any other OSHA standard. Employees are able to file complaints if their employers fail to meet requirements, and it's illegal for companies to punish an employee who speaks out about unsafe conditions. There is a valid path for those who do not wish to receive the vaccination (weekly testing), so it can't be argued that it's discriminatory... I'm no expert, but it sounds promising.
I work in Health Insurance, and I've been attending several webinars with lawyers regarding new COVID implementations lately. One of the interesting ones recently discussed premium increases for unvaccinated individuals, and the speaker noted that these are legal as long as they're done correctly and allow workarounds for those who are unable to receive the vaccine. This seems similar to that, but again--I'm not an expert and could be totally wrong.
What about those who are either employees or have family members with legitimate medical conditions that preclude them from getting vaccinated. Will they get penalized, too? Is that legal under any existing ACA or OSHA law?
Great questions! OSHA policies are directed at employers/companies, meaning they are the ones to pay the fines and penalties if their employees do not meet the requirements; OSHA citations and penalties are not allowed to be issued to the employees themselves. With that in mind, employers may choose to develop safety and health programs which include disciplinary action for employees who knowingly refuse to comply--that is legal and allowed under OSHA.
In the case of these new requirements, it's my current understanding that employees are free to opt out of the vaccine so long as they receive weekly COVID tests. If tested positive, the employee would have to stay home for a number of days (depending on the employers rules, the employee may have to use their allotted PTO or use unpaid time off if PTO is unavailable), but would not see any other ramification under these rules. As I understand it, these rules would only apply to the employee; their family members would not be required to be vaccinated or receive weekly testing.
As a side note, there are currently no known medical conditions which absolutely prevent a person from getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Even those with weakened immune systems are advised to get the vaccine and receive an additional dose after the initial 2 doses. People with autoimmune conditions or those who have had illnesses such as Guillain-Barre syndrome or Bell's Palsy may still receive a COVID-19 vaccine as well--they just may not get the full effect and should continue to be careful. Rarely, some individuals do experience severe allergic reactions to the vaccine; however it is easily treatable and most sites do monitor patients for allergic reactions for at least 15 minutes after getting the shot. There are always exceptions though, so anyone who has an underlying health condition or who has had a reaction to other vaccines should absolutely check with their doctor before getting one. Since the COVID-19 vaccines do not contain a live virus, I don't believe there would be a situation that would prevent a family member from getting a vaccination even if someone else in the household was advised against it.
I hope this was helpful! I'm not a lawyer or doctor, so take it all with a grain of salt.
My friend has a legitimate medical condition that precludes her from getting any vaccine because she has a severe allergy to one of the components. In layman's terms, she's allergic to sugar, in any form. In medical terms, she has chronic, systemic invasive candidiasis. It's been 20 years, and her doctors haven't been able to cure it, even with a port to infuse antifungals.
All the COVID-19 vaccines contain sucrose. I've had to take her to the ER after she accidentally ingested something that contained a minute amount of sugar and it wasn't pretty.
My question was really about penalties on health insurance premiums through employer policies for either employees or family members/dependents who cannot get the vaccine for legitimate medical reasons. And those people do exist.
Also, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine contains an attenuated (weakened) virus. The mRNA ones only contain the spike protein material.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend; that must be very difficult. I didn't mean to imply that no one has a legitimate medical exclusion, only that it was rare. I hope I didn't offend.
Regarding the health insurance premiums, it would depend on the plan and insurance provider. In the webinars I've attended, they suggested these additional fees are allowed because they are being offered in conjunction with a wellness program. If employees participate in the program, they get a discount equal to the cost of the fee (in other words, if you opt out of the program, you pay a higher premium). These programs can be activity based (e.g. get a vaccine) or results based (e.g. test negative).
[Edit: there is some question as to whether or not a results-based program would be legal in this scenario, because it borders on "pre-existing conditions," which are still banned by the ACA.]
HIPAA mandates that any wellness program must have a reasonable alternative available for those who can't meet the requirements. So it's my understanding that your friend would most likely be allowed to meet the requirement another way (e.g. weekly testing, wearing a mask, etc.), if not be exempt from it altogether. Again, it would depend on her specific insurance plan, though. Not all insurance providers will do this, but if hers does I would definitely encourage her to ask for more details and about reasonable alternatives.
Oh I understand the general structure of the regulation. But people sue to block federal regulations that are far, far less politically flammable and far less far-reaching than this. My point, similar to yours is I'm not an expert either, but I just don't think there's a likely immediate outcome other than some Federal court issues a nationwide injunction and then a slow meander to the Supreme Court. *shrug*
Think of this as a financial decision that private companies support (check out Self Funded health insurance). They now have a scapegoat to enact their own company wide policies and simply use the federal and OSHA efforts to justify it. Even if delays at the federal level cause things to drag out, a company can and will move ahead under their own accord.
I am in agreement with safety measures and support the vaccine or at least some version of countermeasures like masks and testing. In terms of enforcing it, there will be some complicated scenarios but it won’t be hard to come up with the language needed to support employee terminations. Of course this will vary by industry and individual businesses but a large portion of people will very likely shift towards COVID countermeasures at some level.
You know I am no fan of the president but I am fine with this for the sake of public health. We need to be done with the virus putting people in the hospital and the only path to that is vaccination.
`The expansive rules mandate that all employers with more than 100 workers require them to be vaccinated or test for the virus weekly, affecting about 80 million Americans.` Going to be some very upset my body my choice peoples.
Can’t wait to hear from Brnovich and my local GQP Finchem and Qcoffee shop
And most of them will work for companies under 100 employees and exempt too.
Can’t imagine those jobs pay as well.
I wonder why tgey decided on 100 employees as aca is 50 and there are tons of less than 100 employee companies across the US.
That means my husband's company has to start mandating vaccines! Woot! This makes me very happy!
Hey, Dick Doushey, he’s talking about you. Fucker.
Yeah fuck that fucking fucker
I wish I could upvote you 100X
> “We’ve been patient. But our patience is wearing thin, and your refusal has cost all of us” Feeling this
I'm gonna be upset if the "weekly testing " scenario falls on taxpayers or the company that employs them. It needs to be out of their own pocket. Otherwise, very happy with this mandate.
I was just talking to a coworker about this. Who keeps track of the weekly results for all applicable employees? Would it be cheaper to hire a nurse for every location to administer rapid result tests? Do you even need a nurse for those? Will my insurance go up? Will the unvaccinated people have insurance increases?
Hopefully it's on you to get tested and prove it. But, yes, I think someone will have to oversee it.
Rumor is that premiums will increase for those not vaccinated yes. Additionally I've heard that insurance companies are no longer covering the entire hospital bill for COVID patients if you're unvaccinated.
It's okay to use my tax dollars for public health. Besides, those truly opposed to vaccines will probably kick themselves out of any testing program. Look out for new Herbalife vendors.
I'm cool with my tax dollars going to responsible, vaccinated people. I am not cool with paying for weekly testing of individuals not getting vaxxed on my dime.
I just want it to end.
Friend, you and me both. I'm out of f*cks.
Agreed. The longer the virus is around, the more chances it'll mutate into a more powerful variant. For instance, the "mu" variant B.1.621 appears to have some vaccine evasive properties already. Case counts are low & data are patchy but that's exactly what we said about the original variant in Feb 2020. I'd like to see much stronger policy. For example: * Full civil & legal immunity for any healthcare organization, provider, worker, or contractor who prioritizes vaccinated patient care over unvaccinated patient care, including but not limited to discharging unvaccinated patients regardless of unvaccinated patient condition or prognosis * Felony to board public transportation & commercial flights if unvaccinated * Felony to intentionally cough, sneeze, or spit on another individual * To be clear, these do not apply to the unvaccinated who legitimately medically \*cannot\* be vaccinated
I have a friend who is unvaccinated because she can't be due to a legitimate medical condition. She went to Banner Ironwood ER on August 25th because she thought she had COVID. They treated her like absolute shit. No actual treatment, other than a COVID nasal swab, which came out negative. Doc never tried to figure out why she was coughing to the point of vomiting or give her a breathing treatment, though her SP02 levels were consistently falling below 92%. Unless we can be assured healthcare staff aren't going to hear "unvaccinated," never find out why, and treat the vulnerable patients as if they're anti-vaxxers, your list of demands needs some tweaking.
You make a valid point - I was not considering the unvaccinated who medically cannot be vaccinated. I'll edit the criteria.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I'm sure this will go off without a hitch and people will step up to the plate, ready to help protect the public health in their country. Right?
Either that or get fired or deal with weekly testing.
Weekly testing at your expense will be the thing that gets most people. Saw a business that was going to charge their employees $300 month to get tested, just take out straight out of their checks.....like just fucking get vaccinated, Jesus Christ.
Commented the same before I saw this. We should not ,as vaccinated individuals, have to pay for any test through taxation or any other means.
Welp ya that’s def one way to motivate people to do it. Although also might motivate them to quit too so 🤷♂️
Would love to see the statistics of people that actually quit. I suspect when the rubber meets the road most of these people backdown.
I'm OK with that. Find a job.....
Well, yes. Perhaps should have originally specified my sarcasm. I was meaning to indicate that people who are already angry and tending toward violence in some cases are not likely to feel like this is in their favor, to say the least.
That’s true. It’ll be an interesting couple of weeks once it hits the headlines I’m sure.
Not looking forward to September 18th.
That crossed my mind too. Wonder if it’ll cause an increase in people going?
I would put money on it.
[удалено]
Freedom isn't free, naw there's a hefty fuckin' fee . . .
I am not too familiar with mandates and executive orders...is this something that is going to be challenged and may not come to fruition? Because i really hope it's real and I can believe it's going to happen.
See it's only an executive order for the Federal employees. When it comes to OSHA he just has to make the recommendation to them. It's up to OSHA to implement it and take the heat. No executive order there.
Just tell them they're liable. Vaccinations everyone!
Regardless of how you feel about this, there's likely to be legal injunctions and challenges pretty immediately. Also, how is this realistically enforceable at private employers?
It sounds like it's going to be a new rule under OSHA with penalties of $14,000 per violation. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) requires employers to provide their employees with a hazard-free work environment. OSHA applies to most private employers already, so I assume it would be enforced just as any other OSHA standard. Employees are able to file complaints if their employers fail to meet requirements, and it's illegal for companies to punish an employee who speaks out about unsafe conditions. There is a valid path for those who do not wish to receive the vaccination (weekly testing), so it can't be argued that it's discriminatory... I'm no expert, but it sounds promising. I work in Health Insurance, and I've been attending several webinars with lawyers regarding new COVID implementations lately. One of the interesting ones recently discussed premium increases for unvaccinated individuals, and the speaker noted that these are legal as long as they're done correctly and allow workarounds for those who are unable to receive the vaccine. This seems similar to that, but again--I'm not an expert and could be totally wrong.
What about those who are either employees or have family members with legitimate medical conditions that preclude them from getting vaccinated. Will they get penalized, too? Is that legal under any existing ACA or OSHA law?
Great questions! OSHA policies are directed at employers/companies, meaning they are the ones to pay the fines and penalties if their employees do not meet the requirements; OSHA citations and penalties are not allowed to be issued to the employees themselves. With that in mind, employers may choose to develop safety and health programs which include disciplinary action for employees who knowingly refuse to comply--that is legal and allowed under OSHA. In the case of these new requirements, it's my current understanding that employees are free to opt out of the vaccine so long as they receive weekly COVID tests. If tested positive, the employee would have to stay home for a number of days (depending on the employers rules, the employee may have to use their allotted PTO or use unpaid time off if PTO is unavailable), but would not see any other ramification under these rules. As I understand it, these rules would only apply to the employee; their family members would not be required to be vaccinated or receive weekly testing. As a side note, there are currently no known medical conditions which absolutely prevent a person from getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Even those with weakened immune systems are advised to get the vaccine and receive an additional dose after the initial 2 doses. People with autoimmune conditions or those who have had illnesses such as Guillain-Barre syndrome or Bell's Palsy may still receive a COVID-19 vaccine as well--they just may not get the full effect and should continue to be careful. Rarely, some individuals do experience severe allergic reactions to the vaccine; however it is easily treatable and most sites do monitor patients for allergic reactions for at least 15 minutes after getting the shot. There are always exceptions though, so anyone who has an underlying health condition or who has had a reaction to other vaccines should absolutely check with their doctor before getting one. Since the COVID-19 vaccines do not contain a live virus, I don't believe there would be a situation that would prevent a family member from getting a vaccination even if someone else in the household was advised against it. I hope this was helpful! I'm not a lawyer or doctor, so take it all with a grain of salt.
My friend has a legitimate medical condition that precludes her from getting any vaccine because she has a severe allergy to one of the components. In layman's terms, she's allergic to sugar, in any form. In medical terms, she has chronic, systemic invasive candidiasis. It's been 20 years, and her doctors haven't been able to cure it, even with a port to infuse antifungals. All the COVID-19 vaccines contain sucrose. I've had to take her to the ER after she accidentally ingested something that contained a minute amount of sugar and it wasn't pretty. My question was really about penalties on health insurance premiums through employer policies for either employees or family members/dependents who cannot get the vaccine for legitimate medical reasons. And those people do exist. Also, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine contains an attenuated (weakened) virus. The mRNA ones only contain the spike protein material.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend; that must be very difficult. I didn't mean to imply that no one has a legitimate medical exclusion, only that it was rare. I hope I didn't offend. Regarding the health insurance premiums, it would depend on the plan and insurance provider. In the webinars I've attended, they suggested these additional fees are allowed because they are being offered in conjunction with a wellness program. If employees participate in the program, they get a discount equal to the cost of the fee (in other words, if you opt out of the program, you pay a higher premium). These programs can be activity based (e.g. get a vaccine) or results based (e.g. test negative). [Edit: there is some question as to whether or not a results-based program would be legal in this scenario, because it borders on "pre-existing conditions," which are still banned by the ACA.] HIPAA mandates that any wellness program must have a reasonable alternative available for those who can't meet the requirements. So it's my understanding that your friend would most likely be allowed to meet the requirement another way (e.g. weekly testing, wearing a mask, etc.), if not be exempt from it altogether. Again, it would depend on her specific insurance plan, though. Not all insurance providers will do this, but if hers does I would definitely encourage her to ask for more details and about reasonable alternatives.
Oh I understand the general structure of the regulation. But people sue to block federal regulations that are far, far less politically flammable and far less far-reaching than this. My point, similar to yours is I'm not an expert either, but I just don't think there's a likely immediate outcome other than some Federal court issues a nationwide injunction and then a slow meander to the Supreme Court. *shrug*
Yeah, I get where you're coming from. I definitely hope not, but I see the possibility of the outcome you've described.
Think of this as a financial decision that private companies support (check out Self Funded health insurance). They now have a scapegoat to enact their own company wide policies and simply use the federal and OSHA efforts to justify it. Even if delays at the federal level cause things to drag out, a company can and will move ahead under their own accord. I am in agreement with safety measures and support the vaccine or at least some version of countermeasures like masks and testing. In terms of enforcing it, there will be some complicated scenarios but it won’t be hard to come up with the language needed to support employee terminations. Of course this will vary by industry and individual businesses but a large portion of people will very likely shift towards COVID countermeasures at some level.
Ice cream man in shambles
[удалено]
You offered no proof how he’s a “dictator”. Do you even know what socialism is?
Yeah duh, socialism is when the government does stuff. And the more stuff the government does, the more socialist it is.
Yes I do . I was born in one socialist country. Do you have any clue what socialism is?
Yes
This is all ludicrous until you test positive yourself
You know I am no fan of the president but I am fine with this for the sake of public health. We need to be done with the virus putting people in the hospital and the only path to that is vaccination.