With great interest and, quite frankly, surprise, we read the Post-Gazette's March 9 editorial, "UPMC at Home: The Health Network Expands Local Access to Care."

It was interesting to note that the editorial seems to disregard the existence of the West Penn Hospital-Forbes Regional Campus, which sits within a mile of the Palace Inn. All the services proposed for the UPMC site are now readily available in the eastern suburbs through Forbes, or even at UPMC's facilities at Braddock and McKeesport. The UPMC proposal for the Palace site is simply duplicative of existing capabilities in the area. It certainly does not bring "medical care closer to the hometown crowd," as the editorial extols. It's already there.

We were also surprised that after investing $24 million in Forbes Regional and adding open heart capabilities, a beautiful new obstetrics unit and the most advanced emergency department in the east, we were not similarly feted in the PG's editorial pages. Didn't these efforts provide "greater access to good medicine in its own community" as well?

In purchasing the Palace Inn, UPMC gets a 10-story facility. That's a lot of doctors' offices and a lot of outpatient services. Does the Post-Gazette really believe UPMC will be content with using the building as an outpatient facility or does UPMC have larger designs for the structure, such as an inpatient facility? Now that would be reason for an editorial.

It is time residents in the east and throughout the region see UPMC's moves for what they are. They are business decisions, not do-good clinical ones. They are meant to stifle choice in health care, not foster it.

TOM CHAKURDA
Vice President, Communications
West Penn Allegheny Health System
North Side

---

The Post-Gazette editorial board described the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's planned expansion into Monroeville as a plus for the region by providing greater access to good medicine ("UPMC at Home," March 9). However, the physicians, nurses and support staff of the West Penn Hospital-Forbes Regional Campus have been practicing good medicine in Monroeville for the past 30 years. Our hospital has been dedicated to providing the highest-quality of care using the most modern technology available to all those who trust us with their care.

Recently, this community participated in donating more than $10 million to our hospital. This money provided much of the capital necessary to renovate and expand the emergency department, construct a new labor and delivery unit and open the Ed Dardanell Heart and Vascular Center. The editorial stated that UPMC's move "does a Pittsburgher's heart (head, stomach, knees, hips, etc.) good." Caregivers at Forbes Regional Hospital have been providing these services within the community for years.

Our recent growth and expansion of services are likely perceived as a threat to UPMC's planned dominance and control of the region's health-care market. There is no other explanation for the expenditure of more than $18 million for a suburban property recently purchased for $7 million. Surely these funds could have been better used to meet the needs of patients in communities with less access to high-quality health care.

MARK A. RUBINO, M.D.
President, Medical Staff
The Western Pennsylvania Hospital and
The Western Pennsylvania Hospital-Forbes Regional Campus
Monroeville

---

The Post-Gazette's March 9 editorial endorsing the UPMC purchase of 12 acres now occupied by the Palace Inn ("UPMC at Home") misses an important point. There already exists a full-service hospital not far from the proposed UPMC site.

The Forbes campus of the West Penn Allegheny Health System has provided excellent care to the citizens of Monroeville for decades. The Forbes campus houses outpatient surgery, laboratory services, doctors offices, radiology and pediatric care.

Why does the community need a duplication of services in proximity to an established and growing hospital? Will UPMC "promise" to pay for the college education of Gateway and Franklin Regional high school students in lieu of lost tax revenue to the boroughs? I wonder.

UPMC surely has the muscle to do whatever it wants -- $101 million in profit in the last six months and $618 million last fiscal year allows it to expand services to Ireland and Qatar and also to the citizens of the eastern suburbs of Pittsburgh. I would have enjoyed a discussion in the PG debating the pros and cons of such an expansion instead of the laudatory comments that such a move "does a Pittsburgher's heart ... good." Is the PG in lock step with UPMC's every plan to take over foreign areas? This editorial makes me wonder.

ALAN LANTZY, M.D.
West Deer

The writer is a pediatrician at West Penn Allegheny Health System.

---

Karen Wolk Feinstein said reducing hospital infections and medical errors is important ("Healing Health Care: Our Health-Care System Is Expensive, Unfair, Wasteful and Unsafe," March 2 Forum). However, that isn't enough to heal our health-care woes. We need a single-payer universal health-care system to cover all Americans.

The bill in the Pennsylvania Legislature (HB 300 and SB 1660) carefully analyzes financing for single-payer health care that includes all Pennsylvanians and, when passed, Pennsylvania will be a model for national health-care reform. Medicare, a good example of single-payer health care, is managed by the government, takes the insurance companies out of the equation and saves millions of dollars in overhead. We waste 30 cents of every health-care dollar on administrative and marketing costs, including astronomical salaries for administrators and CEOs of insurance companies. The Lewin Group, an independent health-care consulting group, reported that 99.6 percent of Americans could be covered without raising spending and save more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

According to a 2000 World Health Organization report, "You die earlier and spend more time disabled if you're an American rather than a member of most other advanced countries." We can change this for Pennsylvanians.

Ms. Feinstein said we hear "big health-care promises" in the presidential primaries. We hope to hear more such promises after the primaries, and the next president should support a national health-care system that covers all Americans.

CAROLYN SCHUMACHER
Point Breeze

The writer is a board member of Pennsylvanians United for Single-Payer Healthcare.

---

I read Brian O'Neill's Feb. 28 column on our fat Legislature ("Lose 20 Percent of Unsightly Legislative Fat") and agree with him. However, let's face it, our bloated Legislature never will. As one legislative aid told me: "You want us to vote ourselves out of a job?" Apparently, the way the law is written, I am told, we have to wait for them to slim down themselves.

Like that will ever happen.

And apparently the antiquated Pennsylvania law forbids us citizens from having any referendum to change this for our good.

I would put it to our Legislature: Either you figure out how to slim down to save us the same money as Ohioans enjoy, or you give us citizens the right to have a referendum on saving us some government legislative expenses to force this issue.

I don't feel we, the public, should have to wait until all these incumbents pass away to vote for this efficiency to happen. Legislate, or give us a referendum to do this. Finally, do something!

LARRY OSWALD
Sewickley

---

This responds to John W. Mullennix's March 2 letter against students carrying guns on campus ("As a Professor and Gun Owner, I Think This Is Idiotic"). He was responding to the Feb. 24 article "Can Armed Students Stop Campus Gun Tragedies?"

Mr. Mullennix says if potential shooters knew that students were armed, they would "modify their plans accordingly." He's absolutely right. They'd shoot elsewhere than on campus.

Marine marksman Charlie Whitman first opened fire on an American campus. It was the University of Texas Tower, August 1966. Neither he nor any other deranged shooter since then has opened fire on a campus where there are known people who could immediately fire back! That's because they want to inflict harm before possibly facing serious opposition.

The professor says bearing guns on campus would "destroy freedom of expression." He notes that a professor's bulging .357 magnum "might dampen class participation." What world does he live in? Before he could draw, aim and fire his heavy short-range pistol at me, he would be reacting to the numerous holes in his body from the lightweight rapid-fire AK-47 slung from my back. On the flip side, a student will not open fire on a professor if the professor is armed.

The professor also suggests that maybe accidentally some innocent victims might be hurt or killed. The odds of that are nil. That's because, as previously noted, distraught shooters, who the professor says "weren't dumb," won't shoot on an armed campus.

So, let freedom ring. Let's continue to protect our precious freedoms, especially on campus.

CHUCK DELEHANTY
Bellevue

---

We welcome your letters. Please include your name, address and phone number, and send to Letters to the Editor, 34 Blvd. of the Allies, Pittsburgh 15222. E-mail letters to letters@post-gazette.com or fax to 412-263-2014. Letters should be 250 words or less, original and exclusive to the Post-Gazette. All letters are subject to editing for length, clarity and accuracy and will be verified before being published.