Episode-934- Listener Feedback for 7-2-12 — 52 Comments

  1. I do believe that our government can perform miracles! I really think they could take precious diamonds and turn them into coal. Can’t anybody do that!

  2. This Obama Care (tax) also reduces State rights. This allows the federal government to over-step the States ability to make its own decisions. Now when a state deems something legal the Federal government can step in and create a tax that punishes the individual who exercises there rights within the state.

    • @Cooper how long do you think before they establish a “federal medical marijuana tax”?

      • better yet… when do they create a tax for gun ownership. or if you exercise your right to carry. I really think the risk to states rights is torn open with this ruling. If they can tax away the freedom and sovereignty of the States, what’s next?

        • My state already has a gun ownership tax. It’s called a FOID card. I have to pay 10 dollars every ten years just to LEGALLY(which already should be guaranteed by the constitution) posses and use a firearm in my state. Can you guess my state? We are the only ones left that doesn’t have a concealed carry law also. Ridiculous.

        • There is a tax on guns is already established and the Pittman Robertson act created an excise tax on firearms and guarantee that those monies go for hunting education and wildlife management. The tax is also applied to archery equipment and ammunition. The manufacturers pay the tax which is passed down to the consumer.

      • Isn’t the law regulating marijuana based on the National Firearms Act. They just refuse to issue the tax stamp. All they need to do is start issuing the tax stamps.

    • The bigger question is, doesn’t this possibly open the door for actual secession by a state? I realize that’s an enormous long shot, but how long will states allow themselves to be bullied? At some point, it will become financially viable to “opt out” of the union.

      • the problem is that the States have sold out to the Federal government. They need them to fund many of their programs and public works projects. Not to mention education and social programs. I think a state leaving would be more difficult and Greece leaving the EU. At this point State would be better off without them but there would be a significant amount of pain involved.

        • @cooper for some states yes and for others no. Some states live off the Fed others pay in way more then they get back. Texas has lots of oil, a national guard bigger then many national armies, plenty of sea ports, lots of agriculture, etc, etc, etc. Texas could upgrade tomorrow by leaving the union. So could Alaska, they have enough oil per capita to fund anything they have to buy and the AK national guard is also capable of defending its borders. Those are just two examples. Florida could do very well on its own as well.

        • The Constitution is a contract between the States. When the contract is fundamentally changed all parties must agree or the contract is void. It is time to shake off the constraints of a broken contract and form a number of new republics.

  3. Thanks Jack, I was struggling with the cashless thing when imagining foreigners coming to the states. They currently hit the ATM to pay for things, travelers checks or put stuff on credit. Instead of the ATM, I guess all they need to put in place is a “cash” card system which would replace the ATM. Man, this will really screw up Dave Ramsey’s Envelope System. 😉

    • @rex, wow just when I think I have the whole idea of how to sell it down you add one more. Can’t have people spending cash it hurts and they spend less but turn it all into space credits and not only will angel farts and rainbows give us drug free schools we get a boost to the economy with more spending..

      • Dang, now you got head spinning. The Fed can “print” as many digital dollars as they want, but they are limited in effect by the Treasury who actually makes cash. If QE is losing it’s effect, what happens when QE occurs in a cashless society? Hmmm…..

        • I’m starting to think cashless could be their answer.

          There is a little-noticed and little-studied continental drift beween the money supply of electronic dollars and that of FR notes. The tectonic plate of electronic dollars will keep inflating at a furious pace, while that of FR notes and T-bills will deflate because of hoarding by financial institutions and the people themselves. The Federal Reserve will be unable to convert electronic dollars into FR notes. Apart from lack of collateral, present denominations cannot be printed fast enough, physically, in times of crisis.

  4. Fantastic talk, as always. Jack is right it is up to us and not the ass clowns in government.

  5. 10% national sales tax? Damn Jack, you’re really generous with my money. I’d be okay with 10% only if all other taxes the fed impose on individuals would go away. That would include fuel taxes.

    Given the situation as it is, I’d be willing to trade 3% sales tax for doing away with the income tax.

    • @Steven I would take 10 and say it is enough to run the nation. Does it get rid of gas tax, likely not but it could. The big one is no social security tax, that is over 14% in real costs on income not spending.

      Additionally sales tax ONLY applies on the sale of new goods and only on the final point of sale.

      Doesn’t matter it is all a pipe dream anyway. The ship will have to go down first, then when we rebuild we can debate how.

      • We pay a national 5% sales tax, plus a provincial, so they combine it into a HST, which is 14%

  6. Jack are you sure about the Unions as far as being taxed for their “Cadillac Insruance”? I thought they were excempt, as they are Obama supporters.

  7. Thanks to whoever transcribed the Selco interview! Great Job! I am reading it now.

  8. Thanks for the props, Jack. My husband says, “You’re famous now!” LOL!

    • Thank YOU so much for the transcription. I had to listen a couple of times to get it all, now I can read it. Huge appreciation.

  9. @Modern Survival:

    In the future when talking about magical farting angels and unicorns, please give me a heads up that I’ll be laughing uncontrollably. I darn near hit myself while swinging a 3lb hammer I was laughing so hard.

    • You think you have it bad. I was using my circular saw building a coop. I could have lost a toe!

    • @Darby Simpson — I know just what you mean. The first time I heard him talking about angels farting money from the sky, I laughed so hard! Then later, I “stole” the quote while talking with a friend, and I thought she was going to pee her pants! It’s good to laugh. 🙂

  10. The “Obamacare” debate is really an interesting one, especially to those of us — over forty million strong — for whom it is more than an abstraction about money/mandates/taxes as we have no access to health care of any kind.

    Obamacare is far from perfect, but personally, I’m not in a position to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as I have not been able to afford health insurance of any kind for many years. Those of us in this position are desperate for health care options. Try being almost 60 and out of a job, with chronic health issues. Try having a child born with “pre-existing conditions”.

    I am a firm proponent of the “everybody in, nobody out” Medicare-for-all stance as a MORAL principle. This nation is supposed to be built on ethical and moral principles, right? as opposed to the winner-take-all corrupt system that is currently in place. Get the money for it by taking away corporate welfare and tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs overseas.

    What I don’t understand is why we can’t get Medicare for all [who want it]. I just do not understand the opposition. It is the socially JUST thing to do.

    Also, can we as a nation support the massive numbers of folks who can/should get on disability for conditions that could have been prevented or can be treated? Can our collective SOUL afford to ignore those of us who are suffering while cutting massive tax breaks to GE, etc?

    There is NO reason for the leech/insurance industry to exist at all in my view, let alone drain our economy; they just add another bloated layer of cost to health care that is not needed. Seriously, are insurance company profits more important than PEOPLE?

    Having the gummint now say that we must feed the maw of that monstrous beast does rub me the wrong way. But on the other hand, I’ll be able to see a doctor for the first time in over ten years.

    • @Ellen, I want you to have health care but I sure as hell should not have to pay for it. Let me ask you do you even have health care now? Likely you still don’t right? Did Obamacare do anything for you? If so am I paying for you to have it?

      As for are insurance company profits important, well, yes, yes they are. Any company you rely on better make a profit or you are screwed!

      There are no angels that appear from your ass when you fart and no unicorns for them to ride. You want health care you have to pay for it.

      Medicaid for all? Are you out of your mind? Medicaid is where you pay nothing and all is covered. You want a solution I gave it to you, insurance for catastrophic needs only. It would fix the problem in months if not weeks. Take away the pig trough and watch what happens to drug and treatment costs.

      • I think the closest thing to catastrophic insurance is the HSA plans. They cost significantly less. I personally put back emergency funds in the account(and my employer contributes if i’m lucky). Guess what, i go only when i need it. I go to well visits which are paid for by the plan (which could catch some problems before they get worse), and when I broke a bone at the beginning of the year I was able to pay for x-rays and treatment from my fund. Tax payers = zero spent.

        As for child birth with pre-existing conditions. Child birth doesn’t have to be in a hospital. There are many safe alternatives that are also safer for the mother and baby.

        BTW Jack. you should get someone to speak about natural childbirth. I think this will be even more important during a breakdown situation, not to mention avoiding the current medicalization of birth

        • HSAs are great but some states (like Arkansas) don’t allow them. You have to ask yourself why and just one more reason I am taking my ass back to Texas full time.

      • Medicaid for catastrophic needs only would be the opposite of what is should be: Medicaid should pay for only preventative care and not the ultra expensive care of those with catastrophic needs.

        Medical insurance companies should all be non-profits and not messing around with buying foreign debt, derivatives and worrying about earnings per share.

    • @cooper, that’s an interesting idea about the natural childbirth…my sister gave birth to her second child with the help of a midwife at her home. I was amazed!

    • Ellen,

      I’m sorry for your situation. However, you are not correct. I trained in medicine in the USA and treated thousands of people who never paid anything. Now I’m sure the hospital billing department tried to get some payment (if they could find the person and they gave a real address), but my understanding their success rate was very low. No ER can turn down anyone. What happens is that after providing care providers then try to get reimbursed from the local city, state as kind of a civic tax, paid for by local citizens.

      Or they went broke and out of business, which means there is now not a hospital where there used to be one.
      In a capitalist free market system, which we approximately had before HMOs or massive govt took over, (a small minority of truly poor) people just got taken care of by providers, and by the same token, these people had a stronger moral compass and would reimburse, if they could, with what they could like food or labor. Everybody else just paid a fee, as it should be in a free system.

      If you yearn for a giant, monolithic govt system, I suggest you travel to Cuba or rural China, where health care is “free for all”. Unfortunately, the system is so impoverished and not incentivized to make a profit that everyone gets very little of any healthcare. Long waiting times (during which, the sick sometimes die), the cheapest medicines. Except the rich, who you and everyone needs to understand will always be able to pay for more healthcare. Please don’t waste your valuable time attacking the rich. The key is to create an overall dynamic and capitalistic systems that creates great products at low prices. A centrally planned government will never, never deliver that.

  11. Wow! Just got done listening to today’s podcast! Very inspiring for me and rings of what the nitty gritty is all about! I am even more determined to prepare our lives for whatever comes and to fight for individual freedoms. Also, the part about people blaming each other is so true. We need to unite, not divide. That’s the bottom line. Great show today! Thanks!

  12. Jack, the part where you talked about family members choosing politicians over each other really hit me hard. My aunt (who is certifiably insane) got into a political argument with my grandfather (who was a rotten drunk) on Christmas. They ended up going a few years without talking. He passed away before they could make amends. They were both nimrods but it still makes me sad knowing he died without cleaning up that mess.

  13. Im from Sweden highly socialistic society its great in terms of brilliant healthcare pretty much free for all and its awesome easy to survive with that, and i think that USA definitely can afford free healthcare for all Americans probably free healthcare for Canada and Mexico as well… If they just spend even half the amount of money they spend on the military they could for sure.. but on the other hand i don’t believe that the Elite want to really help the sheeple, unless perhaps that is a way to keep the people happy enough not to revolt… or something more sinister so they could administer things to everyone via public healthcare, im not sure why they are doing it but i dont think they are doing it for the best of everyone…

    • @flow, Do you realize that all the drugs you have in your “free” health care system are developed in the US and paid for by US citizens and your nation then buys them at a discount. Our nation will shoulder 9 billion in FDA approval costs just to get a new drug approved, all of that is recouped in the US market off our backs, your nation then buys in bulk with no share of the burden. You can THINK it is affordable all you want, THINKING something is not proof.

      Your nation is also on the same road to complete and total bankruptcy the US is. You won’t be surviving on your free health care when the system starts to fall apart. You an sit there munching great meat balls and think it wont happen but we can just call that normalcy bias, a condition for which there is no drug apparently to treat it.

    • flow,
      Apparently the glorious socialistic society in Sweden did not deliver your education in a complete way. Even in socialism, nothing is free. There are producers and consumers. If a producer produces something, they spend resources to produce it. Even a ‘volunteer’ has to be supported with meals, shelter, equipment etc. They must be reimbursed by the consumer or the government, that is the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism/ statism. And where do you think the government gets the money to pay the socialist comrade physician? Yes, from you and your labor.

      History is clear that the best system (even with some flaws and misallocations of capital) is a direct connection between provider and consumer who has immediate incentives as he delivers the best quality goods at the cheapest price. I don’t see South Koreans fleeing into North Korea for their cheap automobiles, abundant food or wonderful healthcare.

      Jack is correct about the large difference in costs for new medicines and medical devices born by U.S. and state-controlled healthcare systems. And it’s not just that socialized systems live off ‘other peoples money’ for a while. They become so inefficient and cash poor that they don’t even allow the citizens the ‘right’ to have certain treatments, because they have already decided “it’s too expensive for you”. I think those decisions are best left to the individual and their provider, since everyone has a different belief about the value of a particular treatment- specifically value meaning price versus what they are getting in return.

  14. @Modern Survival — Regarding Medicaid, I have a story that I want to share. Here in Indiana, we have a program called “Children’s Health Insurance Program”. We pay a small premium to cover our kids which gives us affordable access to healthcare. My husband makes a decent wage, but because he works for a small company, covering the whole family with a high deductible plan would cost around 20% of my husband’s annual pay.

    Complicating matters more is the fact that I’m blind. Blind folks in this country have an unemployment rate of something around 80%, and it’s certainly NOT because the government makes it “easy” for us not to work. Employers simply don’t want to hire us. This means that I can’t get a job that offers better benefits than my husband’s, and if we want more money coming into the home, I have to figure out how to make it happen without being employed outside the home.

    So back to Medicaid… The CHIP program is part of Medicaid. Because of our income, we pay $33/mo to cover our 3 kids, and I don’t have to worry about whether or not I can get them medical care if they need it. Now, I realize that I could run my kids to the pediatrician every day of the world and Medicaid would pay for it, but I don’t. What’s more, I don’t have to worry about situations like this:

    My toddler starts throwing up. I sit at home thinking it’s just a stomach bug and it’ll pass. After 24hrs, my kid’s still not better, and my gut’s telling me that something isn’t right. Because I have coverage for my kid, I can take him to the doc and get an expert’s set of eyes on him. It could be nothing to worry about or it could be something really serious, and with kids, it’s hard to tell.

    If I don’t have the ability to take my kid to the doctor and it’s something serious, things would have to needlessly get a lot worse before I could take him to the hospital to get treatment.

    This is indeed what happened to me with my son when he was 3. He went down hill SO fast from a simple stomach bug that he almost died. It’s possible that had I been worried about how I was going to pay for his doctor/ER visit, I would have delayed taking him until it was too late, so I’m grateful that I have an option that my husband and I wouldn’t otherwise be able to provide for our children.

    All that being said, I do view my kids’ coverage like a “safety net”. Even though we get hounded to bring our kids in ALL the time for “well child” checks, we don’t do that. We take our kids to the doctor only when they’re sick, and we’re thrilled to be able to do that. See, the way the “system” works right now, it’s cost us $150-$200 for self-pay to get an expert’s set of eyes to tell us if it’s just a virus or something much worse, and my family can’t afford that in order to stand on principle. The best I can manage is getting CHIP for my kids and then only using it when it’s absolutely necessary. I realize not all folks do that with those government programs, but we do. And until I can afford to do otherwise, that’s how it has to be. I don’t know what we’d do if we didn’t have that as an option.

    OK, I’m ready for the tomatoes to get thrown my way. 🙂

    • No tomatoes but here are some facts.

      1. I and many other tax payers are paying for your cheap insurance. If your husband makes a good wage there is no reason you guys couldn’t pay say 50 dollars a child vs. 33 for all 3. You call this a “safety net” I call it what it is, a gift from your fellow hard working Americans taken at the point of a gun and given to you while they get no say in the matter. I find it totally unreasonable that 33 dollars covers 3 children. I know fathers who are divorced and ear 400 a week and are paying 200 of it in child support. If that is acceptable, it would be more then acceptable from programs like CHIP to cost say 50 dollars a child. They are your kids after all.

      2. CHIP is abused all the time. I know your husband likely works his ass off but many of the abuses my wife saw came from CHIP not just strait medicaid.

      3. Despite #2 the abuse from people on CHIP was far less and far less frequent in her office. Reason was simple, at least they had to pay something for it. I figure if people paid more, they would abuse it less.

      4. The current health insurance system (created by government and corporations in cooperation = fascism) is why a family like yours can’t afford insurance for major needs. If we all had to pay out of pocket for routine office visits they would quickly drop to the get this the 35 bucks a doctor gets for your 85 dollar billed visit.

      It isn’t a safety net, if it were a safety net it would cover your children for serious and life threatening illness not a cold or the flu. The entire concept of insurance isn’t supposed to be making a profit by plan, health insurance is the only place people expect this to be the case. Such a system isn’t sustainable, as it requires more to come out then goes in.

      Also I should add I don’t blame you for getting your kids on CHIP, the jerks created this mess and we all have to do what it takes to cope with it.

      • @Modern Survival — To be clear, I don’t disagree with you in principle. There are a couple issues though that don’t have acceptable work-arounds.

        1) I consider my husband to earn a “reasonable wage”, but it’s still around 200% of the “poverty level”. We have enough money to pay our mortage, utils, food, fuel, etc, but there’s NOTHING left over. I’d be totally happy to pay a little more for my kids’ insurance if it were required of us, but if CHIP weren’t available, likely the only person in our home who’d have health insurance would be my husband (because it’s so highly subsidized by his employer.)

        2) I’d be completely happy to trade my blindness for the chance to work my ass off at a traditional job, pay more taxes, and cover my kids’ insurance on my own dime. That’s not the hand I was dealt, and I’m fine with that, but it’s worth mentioning. I’ve NEVER expected special treatment, and we’ve worked hard to not “take advantage”. The fact of the matter is though, by not participating in CHIP, I’m not making a statement that’d be noticed (or felt) by anyone but my family.

        3) The system is broken, definitely. If you or I could redesign things from the ground up, I’d imagine that we’d come out with a very similar plan. It’s sort of like the bloated tax code though; we have play within the rules for now until we can make something different and better. Bad policies, complicated tax codes, the idiots in DC — they’re all some obstacles that are clear and present. Like I said though, I don’t feel bad about playing within the rules of the game as they exist now. We try our damnedest to use the coverage as a “safety net” regardless of how you see it. I don’t think that folks should go to the doc every time they have a hangnail (and unfortunately, I personally know some folks who’re that way), but I’ve personally experienced several issues with my kids (flu that turned into pneumonia, stomach bug that turned into life-threatening dehydration) where going to the doc kept costs DOWN because it didn’t turn into a lengthy, costly hospitalization. With kids, they can go down hill SO fast.

        • @Sarah, again I don’t fault you for working with the system we have. If I were you I would do the same thing. But again CHIP isn’t a net it is a way of life for many.

          Now the fact that you are disabled makes your family the type of family that should get help like this. However, your family would be the one the politicians would hold up, you are also about 2% of the whole of people on these programs. Most could work, they have figured out how to not work.

          1 in 7 families is now on food stamps, again not a net. Nets are not places you live, they catch you when you fall and help you stay alive so you can get back up.

          Yet I think we should be honest with language. When a person any person gets “government assistance” it isn’t “government” anything it is tax payer money. Hence all assistance should be called what it is, a gift from your fellow citizens. That might make some uncomfortable but it doesn’t make it untrue.

          I don’t pretend to understand your plight, please don’t think I do but let me just say if CHIP is your plan today, you better get a plan b for tomorrow because this entire thing cannot and will not go on forever.

  15. A gift is something freely given, in a spirit of love and generosity. A tax and a benefit are something else. Such resentment!

    I don’t view the mis-spending that my government does in terms of corporate welfare as a gift from me, nor do I view $500 hammers for the military as a gift. I call them what they are — WASTE, graft and corruption.

    You don’t get to choose how your taxes are spent, and to me it’s wrong thinking to single out social programs that benefit people — particularly those less fortunate — as the ones that are “bringing down the country”. I’ll start feeling differently when Jamie Dimon and his cronies are held accountable.

    • @Ellen oh it is a gift, not to the giver but to the receiver it is exactly what it is. As long as you call it taxes and benefits the receiver loses all connection with the provider.

      It is as you say certainly an extorted gift but a gift none the less. Corporate welfare is a different animal we are talking about individuals here getting “free health insurance” or “free food stamps”, etc. Those people receive at the direct expense of others who produce.

      In a purist stance you are right gift isn’t the correct word but it does make clear to the receiver that their benefit came at the direct expense of another citizen.

  16. Jack was right on about Medicaid not saving money. One of the selling points was that by giving poor and low income health insurance the amount of Emergency Department use would go down. (sound like something we have heard about Obama care?)

    I can speak for a fact that in Cleveland, this is not the case. Jack says his wife’s office was filled with well to do medicaid holders. But he did not see the many more that never bother with going to the doctor at all.

    We often take people to the ED who have Medicaid who can’t be bothered with making an appointment to see a doc. I’ve taken in kids with diabetes and asthma who have on record an MD two blocks from their home address but are not up to date on their shots because “The ER don’t give them”.

    Mom only goes to the ED with the kids when things get bad because you can get a ride if you call 911 and get faster service. (you don’t) And the doc’s office is always packed, you have to wait, and they don’t give you a ride home.

    I also work in an ED once a week and Jack is also right, Doc’s and Nurses should be allowed to tell people to go home. Sunday we had someone show up with a rash on their arm (medicaid), another show up with a “fever” of 98.9(uninsured), and a sore foot from the high heals she was wearing on her date(medicaid). They all complained that they were in the ED for more than four hours each and only saw the doc once.

    This is on top of the drug over doses, alcohol related injuries, and self inflicted events (over dose on mom’s birth control pills was the highlight laugh of the night). My section treated 47 patients in 12 hours, of those 40% were on medicaid, about 10 to 15% uninsured, and only 6 patients were really sick needing treatment right away. (the rest did not need anything or could have waited till they saw their doctor)

    Now granted my Hospital is not in one of the nicer cities, so i’m sure we see more medicaid patients than average. But most that come in are for non-emergency reasons, and when an emergency it is often because they neglected to seek preventive treatment like having insurance is suppose to prevent.

    Medicaid is not a safety net, it is a net, a trap.

  17. I nearly lost my coffee when I heard about the angel-farting unicorns. The sad thing is that I bet the rhetoric from DC will be just as absurd in the upcoming years. Great show!

  18. for “Top W. Kone”

    and yet, in your own words…

    “If I wanted America to Succeed, I would stop complaining about people on food stamps, welfare, and Medicaid. I would go and help at the Food Bank, Adult literary programs and youth programs. Instead of complaining about the burden on the tax payer I would make sure people had places to go to get help that did not burden the tax payer. This would also help me see them as people, not burdens.”

    I’ll repeat that, cause I don’t know how to use html to emphasize it: “This would also help me see them as people, not burdens.”

    Mwatsous, I did not say that people can NOT go to emergency rooms for treatment, I said (maybe not clearly enough) that the uninsured can’t go for non-acute medical care, ie something that can be a “treat and release” type of thing. How about the downhill slide of vision problems that will result in permanent blindness? How about something like diabetes–and before lots of you go off the rails on diet and exercise, there are many who have a genetic predisposition towards this. How about cancer? Ever try to get that treated at an ER?

    Saying that most people go in to get treatment for insignificant issues flies in the face of reality in my experience and observation of over 50 years. Yes, I’m glad anyone, insured or uninsured can get a compound fracture fixed in the ER. It does not offer or replace general/non-emergency/preventative care that is desperately needed by millions of folks who have no way to pay for it.

    There just seems to be a lack of compassion in this country for people who are out of work, working poor or just plain poor. It’s too bad–our numbers are growing every day. You could be among us one day. I want America to be a just and compassionate society. Ignoring the multitude for the sake of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations isn’t going to work, in my book.

    • As I did say, Medicaid is a net, not a safety net. One of the harder things to do in life as an Emergency Medical provider is fighting the seeing of people as a burden. But as I also said, I work to make sure they have places to be taken care of.

      That said, Doctors and Charge Nurses should be allowed to evaluate and send home people from the ED. Paramedics should be allowed to say no on transports for non-emergencies. My examples still stand.

      Medicaid did not save money by getting people with out insurance into the doctors office to be treated, it turned the ED into a doctors office with a taxi service. Because of that, I don’t see how making everyone buy insurance is going to save money since past efforts to get people to take care of their bodies has not had that result.

      We still take in people who have Medicaid and don’t get their diabetes or asthma treated. Who have lung cancer but still smoke, who have hep b/c, liver cirrhosis, and still drink while not taking their paid for meds. Medicaid, a great idea, is not working. Making everyone have Medicaid, or buy their own version of Medicaid, is not going save money or “fix” the problem.

      The problem is two fold: 1) people are not paying for the care so they don’t care if they have no reason for being at the ED. and 2) the people who use the ED as the doctors office are always going to. The simple fix is letting the ED Doc’s, Charge Nurse and Paramedics filter who gets in. (not by ability to pay but medical need)

      You have a fever of 98.9? have not taken any aspirin or tylenol? GO HOME. Your feet hurt from the shoes you wore on your date? Did you fall? Twist anything? No? Just some sore red spots on the side of your foot? GO HOME.

      You have a pain in the center of your chest? Hard to breath? Fell and now your arm has a second elbow? Come on in.