Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
Tone deaf: State Rep. Jim Christiana fails to see the inherent conflict of interest he had in accepting Highmark's tony invite to play in a pro-am event last week at the Fox Chapel Golf Club. More's the pity. The Beaver County Republican sponsored legislation favored by the insurance giant in its long-running battle with health care behemoth UPMC. Such cozy relationships are the epitome of what's wrong in Harrisburg, and in Washington, today.
The Highmark-UPMC “deal”: That five-year “transition” agreement inked by Highmark and UPMC is all well and good, we suppose, but it fails to address the fundamental underlying problem created by the Insurance-Medicine Complex. We like to call it “turf cutting.” Far from “competition,” the goal is to stifle competition by creating artificial barriers to service. Simply put, anyone with any kind of health insurance should be allowed to access service at any doctor's office or medical facility. Anything less is patently unethical.
Be careful out there: The busiest boating time of the year arrives with the Independence Day weekend. And local, state and federal law agencies will be out in full force to crack down on drunken boating. The effort is dubbed Operation Dry Water. The good news is that alcohol-related boating fatalities were down 31 percent last year. The bad news is that too many boaters still imbibe behind the wheel. Don't drink and boat. Don't do it. Period.
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.