Share This Page

Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, March 27, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

Lance: To Veterans Affairs. It appears that the VA is keeping the proverbial two sets of books when it comes to public disclosure about the circumstances surrounding the causes of the latest deadly outbreak of Legionnaires' disease at its Pittsburgh hospitals. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., says VA officials told Congress one thing while saying another thing in emails discussing internal investigations. It's way past time for the VA to come clean.

Lance: To Allegheny County Council. Some members are concerned that the executive branch had access to its computer system. Clandestine “snooping” is the term that's been bandied about. So, to address all of this alleged surreptitious skulduggery — denied by the administration of Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald — the council met, at least twice (are you ready for this?) in secret “executive sessions.” Ovaltine decoder rings cannot be far behind.

On the “Watch List”: Contract law. A number of local state legislators, Republican and Democrat, are pushing a measure that would require hospital behemoth UPMC to contract with insurance giant Highmark. But the right of contract goes both ways. That is, government cannot force you into a contract (never mind what the U.S. Supreme Court ruled regarding ObamaCare). If the General Assembly, also known as the Merry Band of Thieves, can force a UPMC-Highmark deal, it can force anybody to do anything. No thanks.

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.