I don't like the tone of your comment at all. It's very well possible for a person to end up in the hospital where the right treatment is to 'stick a bandaid on' on one end of the treatment spectrum and a much more invasive or complex procedure on the other when going in with roughly the same symptoms.
For instance, if you work a lot with tools and dirt then there is a fine line between blood poisoning and a mere scratch, they will both start out the same but you won't be able to tell what's in your bloodstream until it is too late if you're going by symptoms alone. By the time the choice is amputation above or below the knee or you've gone into septic shock you've lost the window where you might have been ok. More people die from this stuff than from heart attacks or strokes.
So in some cases, when the exact contaminant is not known it can be a good decision to go to the hospital to have something looked at, and it shouldn't cost an arm and a leg (pun unfortunately not intended) to do so.
Nobody goes to the hospital for fun except for a very few individuals that have something wrong with their heads rather than with their bodies, and that's before we get into things like people with compromised immune systems.
