Health care reform is going to be expensive, so don't we need to institute a maximum age to control costs?

If you're enrolled in a government system you should only be allowed to reach a certain age, maybe around 60 or 65 and then you will be humanely euthanized.Health care reform is going to be expensive, so don't we need to institute a maximum age to control costs?
I've got a better idea. Euthanize trolls instead.Health care reform is going to be expensive, so don't we need to institute a maximum age to control costs?
The cost of reform is not cheap, but the cost of inaction is far greater, in lives, quality of life and dollars.





Those are the words of Republican John Dingell, what he went on to say was that the growth in increasing costs are not sustainable, the insurance companies are doing every thing they can to stop this reform, and also that 45000 people a die in the US a year because of lack of insurance and insurance not paying up.





So if 45000 of involuntary euthanized people is not enough for you, then keep on with supporting your wonderful insurance companies in their diabolical quest to put profit before people, until this country finally capitulates into the deepest mire of economic collapse ever!
Clever sarcasm, but obviously the limits/rationing as well as the increased taxation-related methods to insure payment into the system will be done in the most subtle ways possible, because people protest anything that is necessary to make a policy even remotely financially feasible.
It isn't going to be near as expensive as the wasteful programs we have now, that it would replace.
That is a scary stupid idea. If the health system cannot serve all ages, it is useless.
Two out of three aint bad.