Your school doesn't accept the poor or badly parented., or those with low test scores. So, gosh, costs are low. Who could have guessed.

Schools should not be funded with property taxes. That system was designed to keep the money in their own neighborhood, and jack the poorer who don't get to live there.

Poorer districts take EVERYone, including the hot messes, while the uber-schools firstly are located in districts without a lot of poor people and the mess that goes with it. So it costs more to educate EVERYone, instead of the select who live in a special neighborhood. The rich are not heroes. They made this system with the purpose of keeping out the poor - and so made inevitable the tsunami of the poor we see today. Concentrate the bad in hot zones, eliminate the jobs, shut down the factories, refuse to lend money to buy homes, and gosh, fifty years later the country is exploding with the stupid and the angry. Who knew?

Apparently this is confusing some of you. So I'll explain how it works in the USA.

Hypothetically, let's say you cause a car accident, as in this imaginary accident is 100% your fault. As a result of this accident, another person is injured and requires medical care. Your own car insurance policy has a line item called Bodily Injury Coverage. That coverage would pay for the injured person's medical expenses.

The injured person would not file a claim with their health insurance company (assuming they have one) because you, as the person who caused the accident, are held responsible for any expenses you caused to the injured person.

I was simply asking if car insurance works that way overseas. Instead of a private insurance company that you may or may not have, you have NHS. While the NHS is provided as a public service, the care they provide does have a cost. I wanted to know if NHS bears that cost even when there is an at-fault party who caused the problem, or whether in those specific cases, the at-fault party (via their car insurance liability policy) was expected to cover it.

The rich possess an all-consuming rage that people are paid too much for labor, hence their fierce concentration on destroying the teachers' unions. It's nearly impossible to discuss education in the US without talk of the bad, paid-too-much teachers, which must be replaced with corporate employees half the price who quietly have to get food stamps to survive.

The teachers in the poorly-performing schools are big damned heroes. They face the fallout of our rage against the poor and dark and any employee who uses collective bargaining to be paid enough to buy a home. They go to school and face the mess that suburban white flight caused, while being condemnded as lazy idiots who can't teach. The students are n-generation washouts, and will only get worse, because that's how America's race dynamics and school funding works. We're unique among nations in our two-level school system, and that's because slavery never really ended. We made this mess, not the teachers.

You could ask me that, yes. Or you could put just a slight bit of thought into it and consider that there is a more reasonable alternative, which is that the drunk driver's insurance would cover this as part of liability coverage. Perhaps NHS could kick in if that's unavailable?

There's loads of ways this could be done, and since I am not knowledgable about the nuances of laws governing nations across the Atlantic, I ask questions instead of making assumptions. That's all.

As with many things, the solution is obvious. As you say, fund all students equally, from general revenue, ideally Federal as the Constitution requires schools, instead of local property tax revenue. Schools would be flatly equal (other than the usual overclass bunching up in their own enclaves to keep out the poor and dark), rather than the ton spent on the students in the rich areas from local levies and the federal and state underfunding the poor schools, which of course leads to the "failure" of the average test scores we see (richer areas have high scores, poor dead flat ruined, and the "average" drops).

Schools work fine. We just concentrate wealth on some schools and let everyone else go to hell, in the name of freedom. Whose freedom is the question.

This is the fallout of slavery, and lately of quietly letting the country fill up with illegal immigrants to keep wages down. In essence, we've been screwed for over 300 years because businessmen wanted to pay zero to almost zero wages and keep the profits.

So actually bothering to read the government's account of what it has done makes you a "leftist" then? And then telling other people what you found is "harassment"?

It must be easy to whip up that old self-righteous anger when you're so -- let's say, "semantically flexible".

The issue isn't secrecy OR expansiveness, or even both. The problem comes when you add fast track to those two.

Fast track is intended to strengthen the US negotiator's hand in trade deals. Here's how it works. By granting the President "fast track", Congress agrees to vote on the treaty exactly as negotiated by the President within sixty days, only forty-five of which the bill is in the hands of the relevant committee.

Fast track developed in the Cold War era. The idea was for situations like this. Suppose we we are discreetly negotiating with the Kingdom of Wakanda for access to their vibranium reserves. But we're worried about the Soviets getting wind of this, so we keep everything on the DL and rush like hell to get the deal through Congress before they can stick their oar in and queer the deal.

And for a relatively simple quid-pro quo type deal negotiated on the side in a bi-lateral world where you're with the commies or not, this procedure makes sense. But not for a massive, complex, multi-lateral accord that will govern the economic relations between twelve nations, and which took ten years to draft. How the hell is Congress supposed to examine something like that in forty-five days?

This could be fun, actually.

Mine failed and I ended up in orbit.

There's nothing wrong with drafting a treaty in secret, it's often necessary. But you can't make it so hard to examine the treaty and debate it during the ratification process.

That's because ratifying treaties puts more restrictions on Americans in the future than anything else Congress can do. Treaties pre-empt local law and pre-existing federal law. Congress can pass contradictory laws in the future but those would be considered unilateral abrogations under international law and undermine US demands that other countries live up to *their* treaty obligations.

So if there is something dodgy in a ratified treaty for practical purposes you're stuck with it. Anything which hinders the Senate's ability to examine and debate the treaty in detail undermines the Senate's constitutional role. It is not an exaggeration to call something like that a step toward tyranny.

Well, that's BYOD, not Google's fault. If your provisioning the devices you plan accordingly.

Really? We in countries with single payer are clamouring for a system more like America's? That's fresh. America's healthcare system is a boogieman concept here, the sort of thing that one scares voters with - "my opponent's policies will make out healthcare system end up like America's!" Even conservative Americaphiles are usually scared of it.

The dummy did produce thrust. They repeated that for emphasis. That ruled out the inventor's idea that the slots were necessary.

They do understand ablation, and have compensated. The next round will double-damned sure eliminate that possibility.