Health care, pension measures tucked into virus legislation

WASHINGTON — The $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill on the floor of the Senate this week contains political flashpoints that divide lawmakers, like the $15 minimum wage, the $1,400 direct payments and the billions for state and local governments.

Getting far less attention are provisions that could have an expansive effect on health care and retirement savings of people in Pittsburgh and across the country.

The bill, passed by House Democrats last week, tucked in longsought, if temporary, measures to expand and improve the Affordable Care Act, more than a decade after the landmark health legislation was signed into law.

The measures make upper-middle-income Americans newly eligible for financial help to buy plans on the ACA-governed marketplaces and would boost the subsidies already going to lower-income households.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the changes would cover 1.3 million more Americans and cost about $34 billion. The office estimates the annual premium costs for a 64-year-old earning $58,000 would fall from $12,900 to

$4,950, or from monthly payments of $1,075 to $412.

This week, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, said he intends to attach legislation to shore up multiemployer pension funds that suffered after the stock market crash of the 2008 financial crisis and amid an aging workforce.

Mr. Brown’s bill, called the Butch Lewis Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act of 2021, would help pension officials avoid the type of cuts seen at the Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Pension Fund. In 2018, the pension fund announced it would cut benefits by 30% to 17,000 Pittsburgh-area retirees to avoid insolvency.

The measure will have to survive a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian on whether it has enough of a budgetary effect to be included in the relief bill, which Democrats are advancing through special budget rules. Last week, the parliamentarian ruled the $ 15 minimum wage, included in the House bill, did not meet those rules.

Passing the ACA measures as part of the relief bill would mark a significant victory for Democrats, who have been seeking to build on the health law ever since it passed.

This week, President Joe Biden and Democrats began to discuss their bolstering of the ACA.

On Wednesday, federal data showed more than 206,000 people signed up for Affordable Care Act policies over two weeks on the federal exchange after Mr. Biden ordered a special enrollment period. Most states, including Pennsylvania, also reopened their state-run marketplaces to mirror the federal enrollment period of

Feb. 15 to May 15.

The Biden administration is also spending $50 million on marketing and outreach to alert uninsured Americans of the special period.

The enrollment numbers “are an encouraging sign — but we can’t slow down until every American has the security and peace of mind that quality, affordable health coverage provides,” Mr. Biden said in a statement Wednesday. “There is plenty of time left to sign up.”

Mr. Biden also touted the relief bill’s ACA provisions as “big steps to drive down people’s premiums and expand access to care for all Americans.”

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., who was involved in the ACA’s passage, took to the Senate floor Wednesday to highlight another health care program in the bill he said he hopes will lay the groundwork for future needs: $9.3 billion provided to states to pay home-based health care workers.

Mr. Casey mentioned meeting a man named Ira Hall, of Westmoreland County, who has a developmental disability and is able to live in his own apartment with the care of Ray Williams, a home health care worker.

“We know the American Rescue Plan makes it possible for services like those Ira receives and Ray provides,” Mr. Casey said.

“Passage of the bill would be a first step in creating a home- and communitybased services infrastructure that can serve seniors and all people with disabilities,” he said.

The relative lack of attention on the ACA measures — announced by Mr. Biden when he first unveiled the relief package in mid-January — is part a reflection of the bill’s sheer size and widereaching components.

The provisions have escaped the scrutiny many Republicans have leveled at the bill, which they argue is a “liberal wish list” that is not targeted enough on the COVID-19 pandemic.

On Wednesday, Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., called a news conference to slam the provision providing for $350 billion for state and local governments.

“This has nothing to do with COVID,” Mr. Toomey said. “This has nothing to do with the economy. This has everything to do with just throwing a whole big pile of money at fiscally irresponsible states.”

Mr. Toomey later dismantled the bill on the floor with a long list of provisions he disagreed with.

“Two- hundred- seventy million for the National Endowment of the Arts and [National Endowment of the] Humanities — oh, that’s COVID related, thank goodness that’s there,” Mr. Toomey said sarcastically.

“Ninety-one million for outreach to student loan borrowers: I don’t even know what that means,” Mr. Toomey went on. “Fifty million for environmental justice grants: I have no idea what that means. But this one is really rich: there’s about $4 billion for ‘socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.’”

Meanwhile, Mr. Brown introduced his pension bill, which would create an agency called the Pension Rehabilitation Administration to provide loans to support troubled pension plans. Mr. Brown has claimed it could stave off benefit cuts at a cost at $34 billion over 10 years — while if no bill is passed, taxpayers would pay an estimated $78 billion to prop up the pension agency.

I read the Feb. 28 piece by Allan Block, “eDelivery is the Newspaper’s Future,” and would like to respond to it. In his piece, Mr. Block makes several points as to the advantages of the digital version vs. the print edition. I would like to inquire of Mr. Block as to how many people he personally knows who take an iPad on a cruise ship and actually read the paper while in the middle of the ocean? Not many, I would suspect.

Also, how many people in their younger days were actual subscribers to the Post-Gazette for many years and now, due to health concerns, find themselves in a long-term care facility and, owing to the pandemic, cannot enjoy visits with family and friends and find comfort in getting a print edition of the newspaper that they supported in their lives?

There are also many people who enjoy the print edition because they either do not own a computer, an iPad or a cellphone or do not have the ability to operate electronic equipment. It is a great disservice to these people who for many years came to rely on their print editions. If a city like Erie can publish a print edition seven days a week with home delivery, why can the Post-Gazette not do the same? Mr. Block presented no figures or surveys as to how many people use the digital version of the paper. I am of the opinion that the Post-Gazette should strongly reconsider going fully digital.

KARL AUFMAN

McCandless