Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
On the “Watch List”:
• The West Penn takeover. Another day, another contradictory projection from the folks at Highmark Inc. The insurance giant now says it likely could return West Penn Allegheny Health System to profitability next year. That's at odds with a prior projection that the turnaround could take up to five years. Which is it? What is it? Who's on first?
• UPMC. The health care giant says Highmark's latest projection “is less about saving West Penn than it is about Highmark ensuring its domination of the market to the detriment of competing health insurers, community hospitals and UPMC.” Talk about the raven chiding blackness. Or as the French would say, “The hospital mocks the charity.”
• Pittsburgh's mayoral race. Six Democrats and one Republican have filed nominating petitions for the May primary. If past is prologue, the prevailing Democrat will be the city's new mayor. But the real fight could be in the courts over whether money raised in other campaigns can be used in this campaign. Let the gamesmanship begin.
• Those texting citations: Pittsburgh was behind only Philadelphia for the number of texting-while-driving tickets. Police in the seven-county Pittsburgh area wrote 196 citations during the law's first year. But something surely is amiss here. After all, most of us see more than 196 people texting and driving in any given week, don't we?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Economics ignorance: We must do better
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Cyber insecurity: The feds fail to protect the public’s data
- U.N. Watch: Iranian showdown
- Charter school pablum: Hillary Clinton misleads on education
- Sunday pops
- Amnesty’s end run: What rule of law?
- The Gerard Mangis sentence: A criminal, coddled
- ‘Vetting’ refugees: A dubious U.N. link