Posted on 03/24/2004 11:11:02 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
Candidates for new congressional district focus on their Republican credentials.
HOUSTON -- Face to face for the first time since the primary, GOP congressional candidates Ben Streusand and Michael
McCaul stayed in tune with a runoff campaign that has devolved into an issue-free contest based on questioning each other's Republican credentials.
After several previously scheduled debates fell through when Streusand didn't show up, and after some last-minute negotiations needed to get McCaul to show up Tuesday, the two candidates sparred at an evening event organized by several Houston-area Republican clubs.
Streusand and McCaul will face off in an April 13 runoff that will decide who will represent the new 10th Congressional District, which stretches from Austin to suburban Houston.
No Democrat sought the seat, and, to date, no third-party or independent candidates have qualified for the November general election ballot.
The evening featured a four-question Q-and-A that showed little difference on the issues as the candidates, businessman Streusand and former federal prosecutor McCaul, tried to make the case that they had the most valuable experience.
Both offered bedrock Republican values, promising to defend the nation's borders, get government out of the way of business, cut federal spending and work to ban abortion.
The event started with opening-statement thrust and parry, with McCaul getting the ball rolling.
"I am getting kind of bloody, I must say, recently," McCaul said, blaming Streusand for a campaign that has "spiraled into one of the most negative, nasty campaigns the state of Texas has ever seen."
"The truth will prevail at the end of the day," McCaul said. "Good will prevail over evil, and it's time for this negative campaign to stop."
Streusand responded by blaming McCaul for initiating the negative battle.
"I am as committed as he is to running a clean campaign, and I want you to know that despite the expressions of righteous indignation on his part and despite the feeling that I don't feel like I've been treated fairly, I hope tonight we can talk about the issues," Streusand said.
What followed was 45 minutes of questions and answers that showed little difference between the candidates on the issues. McCaul touted his experience as an anti-terrorism official in the U.S. attorney's office.
Streusand, a mortgage banker, seemed unimpressed with McCaul's government service.
"Who do you want to give your checkbook to?" he asked voters in his closing statement. "Do you want to give it to somebody who has been in private enterprise his entire life, or do you want to give it to somebody who has worked for state and federal government his entire life?"
McCaul closed by challenging Streusand to stop running ads that erroneously say McCaul failed to sign an anti-tax hike promise.
Previous efforts to stage debates after the March 9 primary fell through when Streusand backed out of events in Houston and Brenham. His campaign cited a scheduling conflict when he missed a previous Houston event and dissatisfaction with event organizers when he skipped the Brenham debate.
The Brenham event had been organized by McCaul's Washington County chairman, who also is the head of a GOP club in that county.
Until Tuesday afternoon, McCaul was unsure whether he would attend the event because of concerns about moderator Debbie Riddle, a state representative and Streusand supporter. After several hours of negotiations, McCaul decided to show up.
Streusand, who has put more than $2.3 million of his own money into what has become the nation's most expensive congressional race, is running television spots tying McCaul to Democrats, a link that could be fatal in this heavily Republican district.
McCaul has been forced to spend much of his time and some of his money ($1 million so far) responding and reminding GOP voters that Streusand, who has given more than $500,000 to Republican candidates and causes, made contributions to two Democrats, former U.S. Rep. Ken Bentsen and former U.S. Sen. Bob Krueger.
Streusand's commercials note that McCaul worked in the Justice Department under President Clinton. The spot does not mention that McCaul was a nonpolitical appointee who began at the agency when the first President Bush, who is endorsing him, was in office.
By Jeremy Moreno, Times Staff Writer From: http://www.katytimes.com/articles/2004/04/03/news/01news.prt
A little more than two-weeks before the Congressional District 10 Republican run-off election, candidates Michael McCaul and Ben Streusand discussed health care, homeland security and highway spending during a candidate forum last week.
An estimated 100 people attend the forum, which was sponosored by the Katy Chamber of Commerce and hosted at The Club at Falcon Point.
Both candidates were asked about and said they were pleased with President Bush's decision to allow Condoleezza Rice, his national security advisor, to testify publicly and under oath about events surround the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Both agreed that stiffer border patrol, not the allocation of federal funds, is the answer to prevent taxpayer dollars from being funneled into the healthcare costs of uninsured illegal immigrants. McCaul did mention he is open to the possibility of establishing healthcare centers for the uninsured.
The two differed on their approaches to reforming America's healthcare system.
"I would have the federal government reimburse Medicare providers. Customers should choose their doctor and healthcare provider from the best guy or institution at the cheapest possible price. Healthcare is not competitive; it's a series of monopolies," Streusand said.
"It's truly a government-run system. We need to streamline it. I like a step toward free market principles. It would restore the relationship between the patient and physician. Congress and federal employees have a better healthcare system than the American people," McCaul said.
Asked about their dedication to the U.S. Interstate 10 Highway expansion project, the candidates pledged to seek every federal dollar possible to fund it. McCaul added that he would support a toll road, which could serve as an additional revenue source for the highway.
Streusand and McCaul each explained why they feel American jobs are migrating to foreign markets.
"We need to create the most favorable environment for businesses to stay in the country and create more jobs here. It's almost impossible to compete on a level playing field with foreign countries that don't have taxation," McCaul said.
"We should not impede the growth of American jobs. I don't think penalizing companies is the way to go. We need to enforce copyright laws and allow the currency to float against dollar. Chinese imports cost so much less and American exports cost so much more," Streusand said.
Both candidates said they would support action to replace the IRS with the National Fair Tax.
"I support the a National Fair Tax, which would be a federal sales tax. Every study I've seen has shown that it reduces the costs of goods and services in the country. The time has come, no longer can we fix a 100-year-old system with Band-aids," Streusand said.
This national retail sales tax would apply to everyone including foreigners and illegal immigrants and it is impossible to cheat," McCaul said.
Negative campaigning in this run-off has been an issue and was brought to the forefront. Each candidate said they feel they have been defamed and requested a return to the positive campaigning of the primary.
"I challenge my opponent to go positive. This trash warfare is unseemly," McCaul said.
"My record has been question, my business ethics have been questioned. I agree the campaign should be directed to the issues, and I would like this campaign to conclude with the discussion of these issue and look forward to having a clean debate the next two weeks," Streusand said.
Each candidate said they will not move to Washington permanently if elected, but will remain in Texas to be accessible to constituents.
Election day is April 13.
Any word on if he'll commit to joining Tancredo's group? That would go a long way in differentiating the campaign talk from a genuine interest in carrying those positions into policy. I think it would also help the candidate who did it on election day by showing that his committment is more than empty campaign promises - especially in Tancredo's case since he and his caucus are a thorn in the side of the "republicans" who want amnesty or amnesty-lite. I haven't heard anything from Streusand if he'll join either, so it still makes me wary of anyone who won't do that.
"It's truly a government-run system. We need to streamline it. I like a step toward free market principles. It would restore the relationship between the patient and physician. Congress and federal employees have a better healthcare system than the American people," McCaul said.
Good article. I don't find either of these answers to be satisfactory, though Streusand's view is slightly closer to my own. A reimbursement system is not an end though so Streusand is wrong on that - it's only a small step in the right direction towards getting the government out of the handout business entirely. I also believe that the health care system has become monopolized/oligopolized with ill effects as a biproduct of federal involvement and personal injury lawyers.
McCaul's position is less specific and I think the general direction is better than what we have, but he's just plain wrong to believe that streamlining it is the solution.
The real answer to Medicare, of course, is a return to what Goldwater said about all entitlements: "I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient for I mean to reduce its size...my aim is not to pass laws but to repeal them."
"It's truly a government-run system. We need to streamline it. I like a step toward free market principles. It would restore the relationship between the patient and physician. Congress and federal employees have a better healthcare system than the American people," McCaul said.
The biggest reason for escallating medical prices is that there is no price/service competition for routine medical services. Medical costs for procedures that are not covered by insurance have dropped. Consumers do not pay doctors - they pay insurance companies. Returning to direct payments would go a long way to reign in medical costs.
Ideally, individuals would buy health insurance like they buy car and home insurance. Insurance would cover catastrophic problems (like accident/fire/theft) and individuals would pay for regular maintenance issues (oil change = checkup, tires = common illnesses) directly. Competition would create different service/price markets. Providers would then have an incentive to be innovative and lower prices. Today they have an incentive to see as many patients as they can and give each one a prescription.
Since medical insurance was made deductible for employers, it has become an entitlement of employment. That must change for free market competition to work. Unfortunately, it will take a long time to declaw this monster. The huge insurance, hospital, HMO and pharmaceutical companies will not want anyone to take away the goose that is laying golden eggs for them even if the same goose is eating the shirt off of their customers' backs.
Both candidates seem to have a surface understanding that there is a problem but not much more detail.
In every single job where it's been offered as an opt-in package, I have chosen against taking the medical benefits plan and where possible asked them to simply substitute it with more in my paycheck. Sadly, people have grown accustomed to thinking they deserve medical as part of their employment package and seem to have no idea that getting it comes at the expense of their salary among other things. I figure I may need to get a non-emergency insurance package some day but simply don't find it economical right now as do millions of other young people who are similarly situated to myself - i.e. they could get it if they wanted but doing so would be throwing money down the toilet. I accordingly resent it more that all but a few other issues when some politician gets in front of a microphone, cites some uninsured stat that includes the voluntary members of that category including me, and then tries to inform me that he's going to "fix" that "problem" with some government handout. There is nothing in this world that even gives him the right to presume that I want what he's offering, much less to cite me as in need of his program thus I have very little tolerance for any politician who wants to do anything with government healthcare programs other than abolish them.
In fact, that leads to some more questions that McCaul and Streusand should answer:
1. As congressman will you vote to remove non-emergency health care payments to illegal aliens?
2. If you were a congressman at the time, would you have voted "no" on the Bush Medicare expansion act of 2003?
3. If the opportunity arises while you are in congress, will you vote to repeal the Bush Medicare expansion act of 2003?
A yes or no answer would suffice for all three questions and in fact I would be more skeptical of a candidate if he offered anything more than an unqualified yes or no on any of these question.
Well, that lasted almost a week. Just heard a Streusand ad on Rush (KPRC-950 AM Houston) blaming McCaul for abortions and gays in the military because he did not quit his job when Clinton was elected.
Nothing on web site.
McCaul on Healthcare / Medicare:
"The best possible healthcare system is driven by consumer choice, with patients and their preferred physician making decisions about care and costs. Our current system, both public (Medicare/Medicaid) and private (HMO’s, private physicians), is unsustainable and must be reformed. We are limiting physician and patient choices and driving up costs. Moreover, runaway litigation is forcing doctors to practice expensive “defensive medicine” and hampering the development of new medical procedures and new medicines, driving costs even higher and depriving us of the best quality care. The only ultimate solution is to rely on market forces and competition to drive prices down and improve the quality of service, and to reform our medical liability system.While, I am concerned about the $400 billion cost of the new Medicare bill, I like some of the new moves toward a market system that the bill contains. Moreover, we need to get the government out of the business of designing health care systems and then simply having the private sector compete to deliver those prescribed packages. Instead, we need to allow the private sector to design, price and deliver health care for all Americans, including seniors. Even the health care plan available to Members of Congress and other federal employees is superior to those Congress has designed for senior citizens. Finally, I strongly favor the expansion of Health Savings Accounts so Americans can gain even more control over their healthcare dollars and choices."
Searched records from 1980 to 2004:
Texas Mortgage Bankers PAC Payments
12/21/01 $1000.00 EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON FOR CONGRESS
Ben & Kathy Streusand Payments:
11/23/03 $2000.00 BUSH-CHENEY 04
06/06/03 $4000.00 FRIENDS OF JEB HENSARLING
02/27/02 $2000.00 FRIENDS OF JEB HENSARLING
11/06/00 $ 500.00 KEN BENTSEN FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE
07/12/99 $1000.00 BUSH FOR PRESIDENT
08/27/93 $ 500.00 BOB KRUEGER CAMPAIGN
03/11/93 $1000.00 BOB KRUEGER CAMPAIGN (Senate)
08/26/92 $ 250.00 BOB KRUEGER FOR RAILROAD COMMISSIONER COMMITTEE
04/10/84 $ 500.00 FRIENDS OF BOB KRUEGER
11/18/83 $ 500.00 FRIENDS OF BOB KRUEGER
Michael & Linda McCaul Payments:
12/29/03 $2000.00 MCCAUL FOR CONGRESS
11/05/03 $4000.00 BUSH-CHENEY 04
10/29/03 $2000.00 MCCAUL FOR CONGRESS
02/04/00 $2000.00 BUSH FOR PRESIDENT
Also revealing: Individual Contributors
Streusand: $58k, almost all are mortgage bankers or attorneys.
McCaul: $410k, from a wide variety of businesses.
PAC Contributions:
Streusand: $1000 unknown
McCaul:
$6500 Finance/Insurance
$6000 Communications/Technology
$3750 Agriculture
$3500 Law
$3500 Health Care
$2000 Energy/Natural Resources
$ 250 Single-Issue Groups
~$35000 in smaller PAC contributions
Maybe it's just me but it sounds like Streusand is a paid lobbyist for the Mortgage Banking industry buying a seat in Congress. McCaul's support seems much more diversified with no single industry or PAC having significant influence.
When asked about it, Streusand said, "A contributor to John's campaign also represented Planned Parenthood. Therefore, the statement was correct."
Lowry adds,
I urge all Christian, pro-life, and pro-family voters to take a stand and walk away from Ben Streusand. Send a defining roar to him - and to all others - "We will not tolerate Push Calls".
I recently did something that I very rarely do. I took sides in a Republican Primary. In the new 10th Congressional District, I endorsed Michael McCaul.
I did this for two reasons. The first is that Michael McCaul is exactly the right kind of person we need representing us in Washington right now. He has an entire career's worth of experience in tough issues like crime and anti-terrorism. Who better to stand up for us and make sure our voice is heard in the United States House of Representatives than a tough, successful prosecutor?
As the author of Texas' Concealed Carry Legislation, I am very interested in gun rights. Michael McCaul is a life member of the NRA. When he worked for John Cornyn at the Texas AG's office, he created a program, endorsed by the NRA, called "Texas Exile." It was designed to keep guns out of the hands of felons, and it was so successful that Greg Abbott now has it as a centerpiece of his office.
Gun control advocates often use examples of criminals using guns to try and prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying guns. Michael's plan was a great way to prohibit crime, while simultaneously preserving our firearm rights. This is just the kind of smart, effective, and conservative leadership we need on these kinds of issues.
And the other reason I feel strongly about endorsing Michael McCaul is because his opponent, Ben Struesand, has spent millions of dollars misrepresenting Michael's record. I have run for office many times, and I know what it is like to listen to an opponent twist and distort your record. Ben has gone far past the line of honesty. He accused Michael of not signing the "no new taxes" pledge, even though Michael had done so last year. He accused Michael of being a political appointee for Democrats, even though Michael has never been a political appointee. The list goes on and on.
Every Republican should vote for Michael McCaul in the April 13 runoff. Send a message that qualifications and conservative stands on the issues can beat negative campaigning.
Furthermore, Ben Streusand also paid for a Dallas-area State Legislator to mail an endorsement letter into our district without disclosing to voters that: (1) this Legislator is from Dallas, not District 10, as the letter's address implies, and (2) this Legislator is on Streusand's campaign payroll as a political consultant.
Ben Streusand simultaneously tells us that McCaul is part of the "Republican Establishment" yet, that McCaul is aligned with Bill Clinton and Janet Reno. This is dishonest, deceptive, and duplicitous constituent communication. Bright red alert.
When I hired Michael McCaul, he had been working at the Justice Department for a decade under U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, who was appointed by President Bush 41. Michael had distinguished himself during his work at the Justice Department, handling high profile cases, including the Clinton campaign finance scandal where he investigated and uncovered Communist China's attempts to corrupt American politics. I knew Michael was unique and dedicated to law enforcement and justice.
As soon as Michael came on board as Deputy Attorney General for Criminal Justice, I saw immediately that he was a tough, smart, and capable conservative leader. I've seen Michael's work as a "tough-as-nails" prosecutor, leading the charge in Texas on the War on Terror. His knowledge of border security, cyber-crime, and other critical issues makes him a great choice for Congress.
While serving as my Deputy Attorney General, McCaul assisted on the Executive Committee of the State Infrastructure Protection Advisory Committee (SIPAC) to make recommendations to better protect critical infrastructures following the September 11 attacks. McCaul worked closely with the Attorney General, Admiral Bobby Inman - former Director of the National Security Agency - and other Committee members to collaborate with local, state, and federal government officials, as well as private-sector experts to develop a comprehensive strategy to protect critical infrastructures. After the recent FBI warning to petrochemical facilities in Texas, it is clear the people of the 10th District need a Congressman with a keen understanding of homeland security.
Together, Michael and I were the architects of Texas Exile, a gun violence reduction initiative. This program, endorsed by the NRA, takes guns out of the hands of felons and drug dealers, making our streets a safer place. The initiative involved the cooperation of the U.S. Attorneys and District Attorneys across the state. Now, Texas leads the nation in federal firearm prosecutions.
But more importantly, this program has saved lives. I asked Michael to testify before the United States Congress in favor of making Exile a nationwide program, and today this program is the number two priority of the Bush Justice Department just after fighting terrorism.
Michael also helped initiate a statewide program, the Internet Bureau, to prosecute online child predators and pedophiles. He testified before the United States Congress on this program which led to the passage of the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act. It has been an unqualified success story and is a centerpiece in Attorney General Greg Abbott's administration, which is why the child pornographers in Texas no longer have a safe haven on the Internet.
Michael's an innovator, and I know Michael is someone I will be able to work with in the House for security, tax relief, and transportation, and to win the war on Terror.
Lowry adds, I urge all Christian, pro-life, and pro-family voters to take a stand and walk away from Ben Streusand. Send a defining roar to him - and to all others - "We will not tolerate Push Calls".
This is just FYI as I continue to find both candidates objectionable and probably wouldn't support either for much of anything given the opportunity or if either were running in another district (I still find Streusand the lesser of two evils - not by enough to make me go out for him though). But since that article came from Terry Lowry I decided to check into it further. The Pharisee Terry is one of the sleaziest people I have ever had the misfortune of knowing. I say that after seeing him in action for the last four primaries, after tracking his Link Letter's immoral campaign practices for the last two primaries, and after being overtly threatened by him in an email two years ago for calling attention to public information on file at the Texas Ethics Commission that demonstrated a 100% correlation between his endorsements and $20,000 "advertisement fees" in his newsletter. He is a political whore who will tell outright lies about candidates who refuse his propositions. In 2002 for example he publicly accused two candidates on the ballot of conspiring to bribe him with a $40,000 check. In reality it was Lowry who approached those two candidates with "invoices" for "advertisements" of the same ammount, one of which I still have a copy.
After reading the latest from him I made a couple phone calls to contacts back in Texas. I've heard it from three different sources now that the Planned Parenthood call against Devine did not come from Streusand but rather from what is believed to be, at minimum, a backer of McCaul. If it was McCaul I don't necessarily condemn him for that so long as what was claimed could be substantiated (though it would be wrong if it was a lie) or if people did it for him without his knowledge. I am also told that if you ask John Devine right now he too will tell you that it was a McCaul backer.
This seems to make more sense anyway because Streusand was the clear frontrunner going into the March primary. He therefore had no reason to single out and attack Devine over all the others, who was fighting it out with McCaul for the number 2 spot. McCauls backers did however know that to get into a runoff with Streusand they had to get through Devine in round one. Since he was the one who had the most to gain from it common sense already tells us his camp is the most likely suspect. And once again, I don't _necessarily_ condemn McCaul if he did it, especially if what was said in the call was true (i have not heard it, cannot speak on that, and would not trust Terry Lowry to provide an honest description of the color of his own car much less what was contained in that phone call). I also won't condemn him if somebody who simply supported him did it without his knowledge, as sometimes happens in races like these. But I do find Lowry's presentation of it to lack credibility and now believe him to have fabricated the charge against Streusand (and probably the Streusand quote as well as I know Lowry also had all sorts of "quotes" in 2002 when he was trying to accuse two candidates of conspiring to bribe him).
If I were Mike McCaul I would publicly disavow any association with Terry Lowry and will call on him right now to do so (and to all the Streusand backers out there: the same applies for your candidate with Steve Hotze). Unfortunately I don't expect him to do so and I don't expect that his opponent will do the same either with the other political prostitute who is feeding off this race...which all goes back to what I've been saying all along. For a field of 7 candidates, CD 10 sure produced a wretched lot!
If anybody sees Corbin tell him I'm still waiting to see any documentation of this alleged HCRP screening, what it entailed, what it produced, what it published, what it got approved by the executive committee, who it was sanctioned by, who conducted it, who composed its membership, and where he got his information on Streusand's reaction to it. I ask him that as a former HCRP precinct chair myself who was actively involved in the HCRP for over five years and who witnessed and/or participated in HCRP candidate relations activities during that same period for over 100 different seekers of public office, not a single one of which resembled in format what he seems to be suggesting that Streusand skipped out on.
Based on what has been said of this matter to date it sounds as if Streusand refused to attend some sort of panel-style platform/ideology/republican purity screening seminar for the purpose of reporting each of these things to the party membership and public in some sort of formalized report. The problems with that is (a) the HCRP doesn't do that sort of stuff and (b) no report or documentation of them doing it this year seems to exist. What they did do in the past was invite candidates for a generally informal session over snacks and chips at the party HQ with a small group of about 5 or 6 precinct chairman who belong to a committee that is officially tasked with recruiting Republican candidates to challenge democrats. They normally used it as a personal meet-and-greet session for themselves, chatted about politics, and, at the most, tried to ascertain that the candidate they were meeting with wasn't a homosexual socialist who just served 20 years for armed robbery. They never generated any formalized screening or candidate purity reports though and never published anything on behalf of the HCRP (had they ever done so it would have definately stirred up the executive committee and, depending on what was in it, possibly could have been illegal). So Corbin needs to either specify the nature of his charge with better details as to exactly what he is referring or quit making it.
It makes a lot of sense to a 20-something who is married and has (or wants) children. I find it amazing that you overlook such a basic and obvoius reason.
I visit the doctor about once a year for a minor routine visit if even that and my costs beyond it ammount to a couple bandaids and a prescription allergy pill, both of which i'd be covering out of pocket anyway.
God forbid you don't step in front of a bus and require extensive surgery and rehabilitation. Will you just declare bancruptcy and have the state foot the bill?
There's some very basic and practical reasons why you should have medical insurance that seem to have escaped you. The fact that you've haven't paid the price for ignoring them so far doesn't mean much.
Not if the costs outweigh the benefits, and that is strictly up to that person to decide. Why are you so concerned what degree of healthcare coverage I CHOOSE to have anyway, mac? I simply stated that it doesn't make economic sense for me to pay out for something that I get relatively little to no annual benefit for and noted that there are thousands of others who make the exact same choice, including many I know. Exactly what do you find so objectionable or wrong about that? And why are you trying to start an argument with me over something that you have no say in for me? Is it because you desire to have a say in my personal medical insurance coverage level decisions? Is it because you are really a liberal Democrat who thinks that uncle sam should provide forced socialized medicine for this country? And what on earth are you doing hanging around an obscure thread about an equally obscure and localized Texas congressional race that few if any people outside of Texas have any interest in whatsoever? Or are you just some sleazy insurance salesman trying to sign me up?
God forbid you don't step in front of a bus and require extensive surgery and rehabilitation.
Yeah, that's why you can opt for lower priced emergency coverage that is facilitated and atuned to a budget by a high deductable that does not harm the wallet of somebody who does not want or need to shell out for non-emergency care. Try shopping around the medical profession some timy. You'd be surprised at what you find and that includes good old fashioned doctors who refuse to play the HMO and insurance company games and still offer medical care on a market set (and in fact comparively cheaper) visit-by-visit fee and care system.
Will you just declare bancruptcy and have the state foot the bill?
For my own situation? Absolutely not. I maintain the financial security to cover situations that may arise on my own and do so by good old fashioned hard work and thrift. If you don't like that, tough. You have no right to tell me otherwise.
I don't care whether you have medical insurance or the degree to which you have it (nicely nuanced Mr. Kerry). I DO care that you see fit to advise college-educated 20-somethings to forgo medical insurance because their premium costs will probably outweigh their incurred costs in the early years of coverage.
Besides the obvious catastrophic accident, procreative reasons why young people should have insurance, there's also pre-existing conditions (like MS and leukemia) that may not be covered when these young people suddenly realize what the long term benefits of having medical insurance really are.
Try shopping around the medical profession some timy
Yeah? Try showing up at the ER after a serious accident without medical insurance and watch what happens. If they don't turn you away outright, they'll leave you with a bill that will stagger you.
Of course you could always refuse to pay or plead poverty as so many others do. That would leave the rest of us taxpayers picking up the tab for your ignorance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.