UHC CEO Gunned Down in Midtown Manhattan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like teachers who don’t know math nor how to teach it well. Who do I kill? Is there some dept of education mathematics chair conference coming up?

Teachers are deciding if you get treatment or not. They don’t decide if your life is worth improving/saving. Your analogy is dumb. Try harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like teachers who don’t know math nor how to teach it well. Who do I kill? Is there some dept of education mathematics chair conference coming up?

Teachers are NOT deciding if you get treatment or not. They don’t decide if your life is worth improving/saving. Your analogy is dumb. Try harder.

Teachers are not deciding…

[Anonymous]

Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

[Anonymous]

Didn’t that funny Dinosaur show just have you walk yourself into the volcano when you got sick or super old?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

That’s not how any country’s healthcare / national insurance panels work. It’s all based on probability of recovery & longevity vs costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

That’s not how any country’s healthcare / national insurance panels work. It’s all based on probability of recovery & longevity vs costs.

They're wrong. Past 60 there's very little opportunity for them to make up the cost to society. Money down the drain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

Unless they're in Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

That’s not how any country’s healthcare / national insurance panels work. It’s all based on probability of recovery & longevity vs costs.

They're wrong. Past 60 there's very little opportunity for them to make up the cost to society. Money down the drain.

Do you feel the same about children and adults with special needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

That’s not how any country’s healthcare / national insurance panels work. It’s all based on probability of recovery & longevity vs costs.

They're wrong. Past 60 there's very little opportunity for them to make up the cost to society. Money down the drain.

Do you feel the same about children and adults with special needs?

There are a lot of conditions I wouldn't seek treatment for in my child, if they were to come down with them. So yes, to a degree.

[Anonymous]

Unlimited aid, therapists, trials, devices, surgeries and accommodations for all!

Where can I move to get that? Japan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

That’s not how any country’s healthcare / national insurance panels work. It’s all based on probability of recovery & longevity vs costs.

They're wrong. Past 60 there's very little opportunity for them to make up the cost to society. Money down the drain.

Do you feel the same about children and adults with special needs?

There are a lot of conditions I wouldn't seek treatment for in my child, if they were to come down with them. So yes, to a degree.

And parent genetic tests and embryo tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

That’s not how any country’s healthcare / national insurance panels work. It’s all based on probability of recovery & longevity vs costs.

They're wrong. Past 60 there's very little opportunity for them to make up the cost to society. Money down the drain.

Do you feel the same about children and adults with special needs?

There are a lot of conditions I wouldn't seek treatment for in my child, if they were to come down with them. So yes, to a degree.

And parent genetic tests and embryo tests.

Certainly yes. Why wouldn't everyone want to do those? From a cost-benefit perspective, they have a tremendous return.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

That’s not how any country’s healthcare / national insurance panels work. It’s all based on probability of recovery & longevity vs costs.

They're wrong. Past 60 there's very little opportunity for them to make up the cost to society. Money down the drain.

Except that they've already paid in for 60 years. Should there not be some return for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Death panels and budgeting decides.

That which is not sustainable, ceases to exist.

Like Canada when it went bankrupt in 1999. And it might again.

We don't need panels. Just stop care for anyone over 60.

That’s not how any country’s healthcare / national insurance panels work. It’s all based on probability of recovery & longevity vs costs.

They're wrong. Past 60 there's very little opportunity for them to make up the cost to society. Money down the drain.

Except that they've already paid in for 60 years. Should there not be some return for them?

Yes, their taxes got them those 60 years despite the mess they left for future generations.