85 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
RunningLogic's avatar

Yes that’s also my objection, expanding the role of schools—where does it end? Clothe them (with name brands so they don’t feel left out or demeaned, naturally)? House them? They’re already talking about medical care on schools. At what point does the state take over the children completely, with this creeping expansion?

Expand full comment
ViaVeritasVita's avatar

In the early 90's the Karens of my children's elementary school were soliciting for winter coats for low-income children. But they specified that the coats had to be brand-new. My children were wearing hand-downs and thrift-store winter coats. ???? Instilling in poor children a sense of entitlement.

Expand full comment
Freebird's avatar

Exactly! I stopped donating to local causes like “A Gift for Every Child”, in which an ‘underprivileged’ child’s name, age and gift preference was placed on a card on the Christmas tree. They asked for expensive, brand name gifts, things I didn’t buy for my own children. I never thought that a PlayStation was a necessary thing in our household.

And this entitlement mentality has been fostered for at least 30-40 years, so we have a generation of those folks, expecting that ‘someone’ will provide not only their needs, but their wants as well.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Yes, I have seen far too much of this as well. It’s all because of the desire to make sure kids are “not being left out” or “not being made fun of” because they don’t have “what everyone else [meaning the “popular” kids] has.” I wish we could focus the mindset more on not being so superficial and not judging based on possessions. I hate how this all feeds into and encourages that mentality 😕

Expand full comment
Becky's avatar

This is the left’s MO. If everyone doesn’t have something, no one should. Remember the “studies” showing that kids from happy families had an unfair advantage over kids who weren’t? It was a NYT article, and suggested kids from unhappy families should have lower educational standards (hoops and challenges to jump) and be given other advantages like scholarships and such. The left tries to “level” everything but all it does is capsize the ship.

Expand full comment
ViaVeritasVita's avatar

You and I could be good friends, I think!

Expand full comment
Freebird's avatar

I’m sure we could! I often wish we could have an in-person coffee. Some of us have so much in common!

Expand full comment
Fred's avatar

🎯! We may already be there!

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

In my small town everyone knew who was on welfare and the families who were always had the nicest newest bikes for the kids and brand name clothing (among other things) 🤔 Whereas working poor families had hand me downs and thrift store items.

Expand full comment
Melanie Eccles's avatar

That was me - and to this day I'm still a thrift store shopper and advocate. I've studied fashion and imaging consulting for years and I know how to dress. People always compliment me on my sense of style and they are often shocked when I tell them I shop at thrift/consignment stores. Sometimes I can't believe what people give away or consign. I actually made a business out of it when I decided to owned and operated a ladies consignment boutique for nearly 20 years. I made a pretty good living selling used clothing and accessories so I'm thankful for the experience I received because I was raised as a poor welfare kid. I did not remain on the welfare system - I was on my own from the age of 17 and was an entrepreneur - the thought of having a boss didn't sit well with me at all.

Expand full comment
Fre'd Bennett, MAHA's avatar

I have many expensive items of clothing - one of my favorite suits is 3-button navy Brooks Brothers suit that I paid $50 for at an upscale consignment store. (It was at least $900 when new.) My suit wardrobe includes Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren and many others. All purchased second hand.

At this moment I'm wearing a navy Lacoste polo shirt, some Tabasco khaki shorts and Sperry Top-Siders. All purchased used - but many of which are still with the original tags.

I realized a long time ago, that except for a brief moment, all clothes are used clothes. It's stupid to waste money on brand new designer wear when you can buy the exact same items for like 60-90% off.

Expand full comment
Roger Beal's avatar

Buying "gently worn" used is tougher for men than women, at least in our semi-rural area. Men wear stuff until it disintegrates ... whereas some women think "Oh, I cannot wear that again, I've been seen in it already!" and donate it.

And before y'all label me a sexist for that observation, it was made by my wife and not by me. She has a spiffy wardrobe of quality casual stuff (most looking like it was worn once) bought for pennies on the dollar at thrift shops.

Expand full comment
Melanie Eccles's avatar

You are not a sexist - you are absolutely right - my husband says the same thing, especially of more rural areas. When we go to the big cities we always source out the thrift/consignment stores and he finds great stuff there, but obviously I find way more, that's just the way it goes. Thanks for sharing. Cheers!

Expand full comment
ViaVeritasVita's avatar

Agree. Have wished husband could get the male equivalent of fine clothing I wear from thrift stores. Difficult for a male.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

I am not bothered by the “I’ve been seen in it already”’thing but my style and needs change more frequently than my husband’s do.

Expand full comment
Fred's avatar

I appreciate you! Some of us have no style! 😁🙋‍♀️

Expand full comment
ViaVeritasVita's avatar

Thanks, Fred. More thoughts on this, but won't go into them now. However, in my mind, the same is true for used cars. Only twice in our married (52 years) life have we bought a new car--and then, only because the new car had what we needed (1978 Subaru--still could use less-expensive leaded gas and then, 1987 Ford Aerostar--because with 3rd baby, we needed a larger vehicle, and only the Aerostar [which proved to be something of a lemon] had the leg room needed by a tall husband.

Expand full comment
Melanie Eccles's avatar

Exactly!!! And good for you for figuring that out. I just bought a pair of embellished Brazilian Rox Jeans at a consignment store that still had the original price tag of $380 on them - I paid $40. Yey!

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

That’s great and I admire that you have gotten such great finds. I have found that it takes so many visits to the second hand shops and so much time combing through the “junk” that I just don’t have the patience nor do I want to spend the time.

Expand full comment
ViaVeritasVita's avatar

That was my attitude toward yard sales--although thrift shop clothing was much more efficient.

Expand full comment
Fred's avatar

Go to high end neighborhoods and the ones who support Cancer.

Expand full comment
ViaVeritasVita's avatar

Yes--on my return to 'teaching', with need for professional dress, I found the tony Phila suburb Bryn Mawr Hospital Thrift Shop tp be the "once and done". Colleague , envious, remarked on my appearance--how to? Answer: I purchase clothing pre-chosen by women of taste and means.

Expand full comment
Fre'd Bennett, MAHA's avatar

I actually buy most things online these days. I have done Thrifting, but you're right - that's time consuming and often results in not finding what you're after.

Online I can search for exactly what I'm looking for, and specify if I want "New with Tags,' or the exact color, brand, etc.

Expand full comment
Fre'd Bennett, MAHA's avatar

I had my luggage stolen in Spain recently. So I had to replace several items.

Told my wife what I needed, and it showed up in the mail.

One of the items was a white Lacoste short sleeve, retails for $110.

Paid $44 (tax and shipping included) for a new one with tags and still with creases, never washed or worn.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

That’s awesome (what you needed showing up in the mail not the stolen luggage, of course!).

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

See, I really need to try things on for the most part so I generally avoid buying clothing online except in very specific circumstances.

Expand full comment
AngelaK's avatar

I like the way you dress! Preppie all the way! ♥️

Expand full comment
Fre'd Bennett, MAHA's avatar

It's the age I grew up in. At one time, I owned 3 copies of "The Preppy Handbook."

Today I could easily model for "Prep Persona No. 5: the County Club Years.' Page 192. (Ask me how I know.)

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

I love that! You used your experience in a positive way and gained useful knowledge and insights. The people on welfare in my town (which was tiny so everyone knew everyone else’s business) were the definition of deadbeats. Didn’t work, didn’t want to work, perpetually on the government dole. While do many around them worked really hard and struggled 😕

Expand full comment
Irunthis1's avatar

It was that perception that made it embarrassing for me to use food stamps and medicaid for my son while I was in college as a single mom. But I did it to give him and me a better future. Not all ppl were deadbeats...I still worked 16-20hrs a week holding down a 20+ hour curriculum. And I paid my loans all back (only borrowed 30k for pharmacy school). Paid back those food stamps and any medicaid he used via taxes many many times over. My caseworker used to tell me she wished she had a hundred ppl like me instead of what she usually deals with. But yeah. An atypical example for sure. Still was embarrassing tho. And I still went without because my income was such I only qualified for a small stipend. I was a lot skinnier then. 😉

Expand full comment
Alan Devincentis's avatar

Key word, you were embarrassed! It used to be that people that had to take a handout or up, were ashamed. I don’t see that anymore. I see those taking and scamming at the same time, instead of working. And if you are on assistance, I’m thinking nails and eyelashes and cell phones might be a tad expensive for the likes of those people. But apparently, it’s now a sense of arrogant pride.

Expand full comment
Double Mc's avatar

Why feel embarrassed when your money comes from a nameless, faceless bureaucracy? It was different when, in the past, charity had to be taken from people you knew, and who may not have had much to give. That's the worst part of it.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Exactly!! When it was neighbors there was a sense of accountability. It helped build ties and also keep people honest to only ask for what they needed.

Expand full comment
Irunthis1's avatar

Back then, you got a coupon book of actual "food stamps" which is where the term came from. It took time to count them all out as they came in various denominations like money but they were glued into a booklet. Everyone around you could see what you were doing, knew what it was, and gave the stank eye as you used them. There were no cell phones to own, no debit cards, just checks, cash and credit cards which I didn't have. Even the cashier would glare. I wasn't even buying steaks believe me as I needed meals for a growing boy I bought fruit, vegetables, hamburger, chicken, eggs and milk.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

You are the kind of person I am happy to help! It’s meant to be a temporary help not a way of life. I know the reality of generations on welfare from growing up where I did and seeing it first hand, and that’s my objection. The problem with the system is that it is more designed to enable that than give an incentive to get off the program. As your caseworker seemed to acknowledge 😕

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

I shop at thrift stores. I wear new/like new Chico’s, Talbots and other brands of upscale clothing. I’ve also found some nice antiques. I recently purchased a stapled plate from the 1870’s for a dollar because it was “damaged.” The company made dinnerware for Tiffany.

Expand full comment
Fred's avatar

Most dirt poor, but no one was on welfare. And sharing was eagerly anticipated. Of course, the population was in the low hundreds. I still remember when free food for the poor showed up - most were offended, at least initially. Times have changed.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

When you think about the government declaring a “war on poverty” in the 60s and decades later it’s gotten worse not better…

Expand full comment
RJ Rambler's avatar

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.... Myself!

Expand full comment
Anthony's avatar

My mom used to be a guidance counselor and the kids they gave coats to would lose them constantly because they could just get another one. There's no gratitude or appreciation there.

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

I stopped volunteering to give Christmas gifts 🎁 to children because parents felt entitled to them.

People donated bikes and other nice toys. I imagine some of those people did without to make sure kids received their Christmas wishes. I gave out many gifts to parents and none of them said a word of thanks. I was shocked.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

That’s awful 😕

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

It was! I thought that people would appreciate that others cared about their children and wanted to protect them from the harsh realities of life. But they just wanted to come in and grab their stuff and go. I think they felt like people that donated stuff were just to be taken advantage of. I don’t know quite how to explain their attitude. I wasn’t the only volunteer that noticed it. Whenever someone does something nice for me or my family, I try to let them know that I appreciate their kindness and thoughtfulness.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Unfortunately when people expect it as their due, this is the attitude you get 😕 My mom participated in a nonprofit that rehabbed houses and rented them to low income people. Some of the people just who had all of their rent paid for just trashed the place 😕 It’s very disheartening.

Expand full comment
RJ Rambler's avatar

Nothing teaches gratitude more than going without things that aren't water, meat and veggies, clothing to fit the weather and maybe just a little too thin, and shelter from wind and sun and snow and rain.

Expand full comment
ViaVeritasVita's avatar

Wow! I hadn’t heard that one. But it has all the marks of the truth I experienced. Throughout those years of exposure, I continued (and continue) to believe that “beggars can’t be choosers”. My children’s father was starting/running a high tech business; “salary” was an iffy thing—a paycheck a reason for great gratitude (to be honest—38 years later, that’s still true). Hence, Mama’s sewing machine and the thrift shop.

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

I stopped volunteering to give Christmas gifts 🎁 to children because parents felt entitled to them.

People donated bikes and other nice toys. I imagine some of those people did without to make sure kids received their Christmas wishes. I gave out many gifts to parents and none of them said a word of thanks. I was shocked.

Expand full comment
Fre'd Bennett, MAHA's avatar

Our 5 children are all successful adults now.

Way back in the day, we participated in the hedonistic, let's get them all they ever wanted for Christmas. But we came to realize this was misguided.

These days, I'm proud to say that my children who are scattered around the globe, are all my friends. We talk about serious things we laugh about unserious things. but we talk.

Though I did my best as their father, I had no reason to expect that they would turn out so well,. and impress me so much.

Deo gratias.

Expand full comment
Roger Beal's avatar

Fred, you give the credit correctly, where it is truly due.

Expand full comment
Lisa Ca's avatar

😩

Expand full comment
AngelaK's avatar

I believe that all school children in the US should wear uniforms!! So much pressure is off parents and children with uniforms! No wealth or fashion comparing!

No binary and gender garbage. Boys and girls uniforms, period.

The lack of discipline in this country is getting out of hand. Cell phones should be handed in at the beginning of the day too, or simply not allowed!

Expand full comment
Freebird's avatar

I agree! My grandchildren were privileged enough to attend a Christian elementary school where they wore uniforms every day. It gave me such an appreciation for the concept of school uniforms.

It eliminates all the stress and competition in the dress area at least. They focused their competition on academic performance which was a great thing!

Expand full comment
AngelaK's avatar

I wore one for 8 years at a parochial school. Hated it then but I realize what a good thing it was for us.

My daughter wore one at her Catholic high school for high school. It was a true blessing, especially in high school!

Expand full comment
Lisa Ca's avatar

Gag! 🙄

Expand full comment
Susan Stephens's avatar

I believe that’s actually the objective; train them to look to government for every need/want.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Yup, I think so too, hence my objection. And it’s so easy to convince people this is all okay using the “don’t you care about the children??” manipulative argument 😕

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

Really? Can you look a 6 year old girl in the eyes and tell her it’s better if she goes hungry? The government shouldn’t help her at all. She ought to go begging to the church for help. I don’t mind paying taxes to feed hungry children. But that’s just me 🙄

School lunches totally suck. It’s not like they’re getting good meals.

Expand full comment
Johnny Be Real's avatar

No one said don’t feed kids. The DoE is failing and expanding a failure is more failure. The DoE system is broken. That’s the point.

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

Really? There were other comments saying we should flat out not feed them but I don’t have time too inclination to look for them.

SYFY

MamaApprovedBooks4Kids

5 hrs ago

Hunger is a great motivator as well...also teaches gratefulness. I don't want kids to go hungry, but no way the gov't should be feeding them. Isn't that what our local churches are for?

CathyRN

6 hrs ago

During the depression most kids went to school without shoes and I’m sure many of them were hungry. But they learned the basics of education that allowed them to pursue a better future.

Now we’re feeding their stomachs while starving their minds.

Expand full comment
RJ Rambler's avatar

Parents are getting welfare and food to feed plus free meals at school! Hooray parents can sell the food or cards for drugs and sex.

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

Some parents are the working poor. Not all poor parents are on welfare.

Expand full comment
RJ Rambler's avatar

Certainly but i was still paying for others to NOT feed their own. It shouldn't be a gov charity! Gov NEVER GIVES CHARITY. Ppl give. Organizations give to gain...something!

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

That isn’t what I said 🙄 Please don’t twist my words and interpret them to mean something different from what I wrote. Just because I’m not in favor of this particular solution doesn’t mean I want kids to starve. It’s not a binary choice between schools feeding kids and them not getting fed at all.

There are kids who are homeless too. And need clothes and medical care. What about building dormitories for homeless children and a store so they can get free clothes? And attach a medical center to the school while you’re at it too.

Your rection is exactly what I’m talking about—creeping government control is justified by appealing to people’s emotions and accusing people of being uncaring if they are not on board with expanding government services. Schools are not the only way to get children fed. And government is usually the most wasteful and least efficient way of getting anything done. I don’t want to pay more taxes for this not because I don’t want children to eat, but because I want to minimize government involvement in all of our lives. There is far too much waste, bureaucracy and ultimately less freedom once the government starts to put its tentacles into any aspect of life. For all the taxes we pay, we should have zero societal problems by now, but it seems like the more we pay, the more problems we have.

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

Btw. When child labor laws were passed, many people felt that the government should not intervene in their children’s lives. Parents wanted their very young children to work 10-12 hours in the mines and factories to help support them.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Of course they thought that, children contributed income to the household and they had to find a way to replace that somehow 😕 The idea was good but as always with the government, implementation was flawed. I wonder how many children subsequently went hungry because their income was suddenly missing from the household? A transition period to allow households to adjust m, or some other way to ease into it, would have been a better idea, but I am sure the people patting themselves on the back for “saving the children” didn’t ever consider that.

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

OMG 😳 please look at some of those pictures (search child labor) of children in mines and factories.

BTW wouldn’t the churches have fed the hungry children? Surely they wouldn’t let children starve. People say we don’t need government lunches because wonderful church people will feed them. Those 7 year-old children forced to work 10+ hours, 6 days a week, couldn’t have possibly have gone hungry with so many good samaritans in nearby churches to help them.

A society that doesn’t protect and provide for its children doesn’t have (or deserve) much of a future.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

What does that have to do with what I said?? Did I say I thought they should be working like that? Why is it that you just react emotionally to those pictures (which I do as well, they’re heartbreaking) but refuse to acknowledge the reality of people’s lives that their children contributed to household income? Stating that truth does not mean I think child labor was a *good* thing. How do you think the parents made up for that income once it was taken away, I ask you again? Maybe the churches did feed them. But then again, do you think churches were equipped to handle a sudden massive influx of hungry people that weren’t there before?? I’m sure they weren’t. You can’t just wave a magic wand and suddenly find a way to provide for large numbers of hungry people. I’m sorry, that’s just completely unrealistic. That’s why I said a transition period would’ve been helpful. This idea of sudden revolutionary change is never not fraught with all kinds of unintended consequences, because no one ever thinks that far ahead since they’re too busy crowing about how wonderful they are for supposedly solving a problem. The virtue signaling and emotion-driven decisions that have not been well thought out inevitably carry with them all kinds of issues downstream that sometimes can be as bad as or worse than the initial problem.

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

“ That’s why I said a transition period would’ve been helpful” My “emotions” would kept me from allowing any child to enter a factory or mine to work ever again. There would have been no transition period. I thank God for that.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

I guess the short in-a-nutshell summary is, your statement simply confirms that you have zero cares about what happens to the children and their families once the children are banned from working, as long as *you* can feel good about *yourself*. It’s not actually about *their* well-being at all.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

You have no idea what you would or would not have done had you lived in those times. We all like to believe we’d have acted in a certain way but society helps shape our expectations and our perceptions. There’s no guarantee and you certainly have no way to prove that. It’s just speculation.

And it’s great that you see yourself as disallowing them from working in those conditions but again, what good is that if the child ends up starving? My objection is not to banning child labor of this sort but as usual, the government and the do-gooders have NO plan or provision for the consequences of their decrees. It’s all about preening over their virtuous actions and not bothering their heads about what negative effects might ensue even from a positive action. It’s about appearances and not reality. It’s always about telling themselves and the world what good people they are, regardless of the real life outcomes and downstream effects.

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

I agree with you that for as many taxes as we pay, we should have zero societal problems. However, please tell me your better solution for feeding hungry school children? I think government intervention is absolutely essential in some areas. One of them is in school lunches for poor children. I think it’s terribly cruel that some people here feel kids do better in school when they’re hungry. These are children -not adults. Although, I don’t think that the schools need to provide 2 or 3 meals a day for them.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Non profits? Churches as mentioned above? A combination of different approaches? Don’t we pay politicians and policy makers big money to come up with these kinds of solutions? Why is it up to me to do that? All I know is, since the government declared a so-called “war on poverty” things have only gotten worse even though we spend more money than ever.

Let me turn the question around to you—why do *you* believe government is the best way to help people? From what I have seen in my life, it’s usually the least effective means of solving any problem.

I also challenge how many children are actually “hungry.” How is that even determined? Do they ask kids? What is the basis for deciding this? And why can’t we just feed the ones who really are hungry instead of allowing those who are perfectly capable of providing meals to their children to freeload off of everyone else if they choose to? That’s my problem with all of these government programs, they use exorbitant amounts of money and only end up helping a small proportion of those in real need. I hear people say “oh well I would rather have the programs available even if some don’t need it and at least some in need will also be helped.” But that is totally ignoring the concept of opportunity cost. Despite what some people seem to think, funds are not unlimited. If we use part of our money to help people who don’t actually need it, then less money is available for people who truly do. I am not okay with that. I’m also not okay with financially supporting a cumbersome and inefficient bureaucracy to distribute the funds and services to needy people.

Don’t feel obligated to respond, if you don’t want to take the time. It’s been a very interesting discussion that would be far easier in person than typing out long replies 😕 I am in the middle of a very busy week and I am not sure if I will be able to continue the exchange, as interesting and thought provoking as it’s been. 😕

Expand full comment
My Favorite Things's avatar

The government is bloated and there is a lot of corruption. I do believe we, as a society, need to provide for those children that are truly in need.

Anyhow, I have the impression that you’re against any government involvement or intervention to help others suffering in life. I’m for basic safety nets. We aren’t getting anywhere in our conversations since our perspectives about life annd helping others are so different.

I believe life was much worse for many before government intervention. We would probably still have child labor, slavery, poor & dangerous working conditions, pregnant women going without prenatal care and more without government intervention. I’m not saying the government is run by perfect people or that there isn’t a lot of fraud, waste and abuse. I’m comparing life today for poor people compared to life in the 1800’s and early 1900’s.

Thank you for engaging with me. I’ve learned a lot from seeing your viewpoint. 🙂 Hope you have a good day.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

I appreciate that. Thank you also and have a good day.

A few more thoughts since I have a minute. We do clearly have different world views. I’m not against any government involvement but I believe it should be a last resort and have safeguards in place to keep it from expanding too much. There were good reforms a century or so ago but now government is overly involved and getting more so all the time. I’ve seen the creeping interventionism across the decades and the overreach. Government is generally the worst option for solving problems. And so it should be used sparingly and judiciously. Which I absolutely do not think is the case nowadays and it hasn’t been so for a while.

I also think people are worse off in many ways now than several decades ago, despite the increased government programs. The cost of government makes it more difficult for people to live on smaller incomes. There are so many taxes and fees beyond income taxes that poorer families struggle more than they have in a long time. And it becomes a vicious circle that keeps poor people living in poverty instead of giving them opportunities to get out. It’s like with the Department of Education. We used to be top ranked in education but the more the government has gotten involved, the worse outcomes have gotten. More government does not equal better conditions. And a lot of the improvements you cited either have negatives to offset them (free prenatal care often means government coercion for shots and other interventions that aren’t necessary or beneficial—look at infant and maternal mortality rates in the US, “Despite spending two and half times more per person on health than the OECD average, the maternal mortality rate in the U.S. increased from 12 to 14 deaths per 100,000 live births from 1990 to 2015, putting the United States at 46th in the world.” from the Wilson Center website). Or they weren’t all due to government intervention but other factors—education by nonprofits, cultural changes such as hygiene practices, and so on.

Expand full comment
Lisa Ca's avatar

❤️❤️❤️

Expand full comment
Melanie Eccles's avatar

I also believe that is the objective - it's in the marxism playbook...

Expand full comment
LamedVav disavows all vaxes.'s avatar

My opinion: we should go back to letting children bring a bag lunch from home.

We need more individual responsibility .

We need less, way less, government nannying .

Expand full comment
Double Mc's avatar

Seriously, in my small Catholic school, everyone brought their lunch. There was bread and peanut butter if you forgot.

Expand full comment
P Flournoy's avatar

I was from a rather poor family and we probably didn’t go to the doctor but very few times in my entire 17 years at home. One time my mother took my sister to the doctor because she had been coughing and coughing and was having trouble breathing and he said we need to put her in the hospital. She has pneumonia and my mother went to the pharmacist and got some medicine and brought her home. She lived long past that illness.

Expand full comment
STH's avatar

Medical care? Or forced injection

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Well yes that but other things too.

Expand full comment
Michelle's avatar

WA state is already putting “health centers” in schools.

Expand full comment
RunningLogic's avatar

Even states like Indiana are trying to expand what schools can offer in terms of medical services.

Expand full comment
Lisa Ca's avatar

❤️❤️❤️❤️

Expand full comment