> DC>>> healthcare is by no means a "right".

  > GK>> Not in your country, that is.

  > DC> Correct, yes.  The person I was replying to was talking about the
  > DC> situation as it is here in the USA.

LL>If only the wealthy have the "right to life", what rights
  >to those who are not wealthy have?  The dead can hardly claim
  >any rights, as they are hardly in any position to claim a
  >thing.  So what gives?  Should all who are not wealthy
  >have to beg in order to survive?

You're attempting a "straw-man" argument, and I'm not buying it.  All
people have the same rights.  Once again, healthcare is NOT a "right".

LL>If healthcare is not affordable, it is not accessible.
  >If healthcare is not accessible, the only rights one has
  >is the right to die.

Wrong.  You/we all have many more rights than that.

LL>The USA signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  >on December 10, 1948.  But has never ratified it.  Furthermore,
  >during the tenure of US President George H.W. Bush, the US
  >Senate declared it null and void, as it was never a treaty
  >to begin with.

Sounds completely appropriate to me.  If it was not an official treaty
it has no real meaning.

LL>In other words, the US just gives lip service to the UN.
  >Nothing the USA signs has any real meaning, as the UN is
  >just a debating society consisting of old men (and some
  >women).

I'm happy to see us not controlled by the UN.  We are not subject to the
rul of some random group of other nations, and I hope we never are.
Lip service may be more than that group of NWO-wannabes deserves.

Once again, I suggest that if you hate your country so much, feel free
to leave.  Perhaps you'd find Venezuela more to your liking.


 * SLMR 2.1a * "Bother!" said Pooh, as Yoda told him of another Pooh.
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32