Letter to the editor: UPMC-Highmark political stunt | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: UPMC-Highmark political stunt

The UPMC/Highmark situation is a great example of why health care should never be delegated to government control or interference. Attorney General Josh Shapiro should have left the issue alone. People had five years to decide what was best for their health care and wallets. Shapiro was only good for those too lazy to figure out their best choice.

Choosing providers is dictated by one’s ability to secure the most desired physician and service choices at a cost they are willing to pay. It is no different than the grocery store you shop. If their prices are too high, or if they don’t carry the products you use, you shop elsewhere. Brand or store loyalty is a big mistake.

Providers are easily changed if premiums get more expensive, or if physician/service choices change negatively. The dispute between Highmark and UPMC was originally resolved by a negotiated decree that gave customers five years to evaluate coverages and costs to create their best deal. We do not need government lawyers at enormous taxpayer expense, or new consent decrees, to enable us to properly choose what’s best for us. Free health care advisers can not only guide your best choice, but help you to seamlessly make any needed provider policy change(s) as well.

Shapiro’s action will increase UPMC’s premiums, because, for the next 10 years, Highmark clients will garner UPMC-subsidized lower cost. Highmark’s client numbers, now using UPMC at no premium, creates longer lines for UPMC client’s access to its physicians and services.

Len Bach


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.