governmental plans to exempt themselves from those requirements, id. § 300gg-21(a)(2)(A). Rather than showing that Congress knew how to include non-Federal governmental plans when it wanted to, this language shows that Congress knew how to exclude such plans when Congress intended as much. This exclusion makes sense only if Congress understood that non-Federal governmental plans, fall under the broader set of "group health plans” in the first place. The State’s argument turns this straightforward reading of the opt-out provision on its head and overlooks that Congress nowhere excluded or provided an "opt-out” mechanism for governmental health plans facing transitional ‘reinsurance contri-buttons. See Fry v. United States, 421 U.S. 542, 545-46, 95 S.Ct. 1792, 44 L.Ed.2d 363 (1975) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The State’s .reliance on Pennsylvania
holding that federal wage controls applied to state employees too holding in non  17200 case that the exclusive remedy for violations of the state and federal wage and hour laws is flsa holding that the flsa does not prohibit changes in wage rates it prohibits the payment of overtime at less than one and onehalf times the regular wage rate holding that five alleged incidents in four years were too few too separate in time and too mild  to create an abusive working environment holding illinois wage law only applied where at least some work was performed within the state