Can anyone explain how Obamacare will change things for our family (self-employed, OOP payments)

[goldberry]

I think the ACA will be a move toward a universal care, single payer system (which I am in favor of). Probably the interim will be ugly and messy. Before that happens, it will still be a mess as long as health insurance is tied in any way to employment. That cord needs to just be cut once and for all.

 

Also, to the OP who said Microsoft or Apple should run healthcare, THEY ALREADY ARE. The insurance companies are just giant, for-profit corporations like Microsoft and Apple.

 

As far as the govt telling a business how much profit is ok to make, I don't think any company that is involved with whether or not people live or die should be a for-profit company. The profit motive will ALWAYS conflict with what is in the best interest of the people. This includes pharmaceutical companies.

[TranquilMind]

I think the topic has been very civil and unpolitical so far.

 

Yes, it most definitely has. I don't understand why adults want to censor other adults in the exchange of ideas.

 

I get it if people are cussing others out, but normally peer pressure takes care of that.

 

None of that is happening here. Rather, just a simple discussion is going on.

[TranquilMind]

double post again!

[TranquilMind]

I think the topic has been very civil and unpolitical so far.

 

Yes, it most definitely has. I don't understand why adults want to censor other adults in the exchange of ideas.

 

I get it if people are cussing others out, but normally peer pressure takes care of that.

 

None of that is happening here. Rather, just a simple discussion is going on.

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, it most definitely has. I don't understand why adults want to censor other adults in the exchange of ideas.

I get it if people are cussing others out, but normally peer pressure takes care of that.

None of that is happening here. Rather, just a simple discussion is going on.

 

There are rules to this board just as there are to any other bulletin board. People want others to be mindful of the rules because we don't want the thread deleted.

 

 

[astrid]

Yes, it most definitely has. I don't understand why adults want to censor other adults in the exchange of ideas.

 

I get it if people are cussing others out, but normally peer pressure takes care of that.

 

None of that is happening here. Rather, just a simple discussion is going on.

 

Yes, quite. Let's all exchange ideas about how best to discipline infants with plumbing supply lines, or which crockpots are best, or whether ADD is really all about a lack of discipline, or how Cesar Milan is the best dog trainer EVER! :tongue_smilie:

 

astrid

[TranquilMind]

'coloradoperkins' :

The insurance companies are just giant, for-profit corporations like Microsoft and Apple.

 

As far as the govt telling a business how much profit is ok to make, I don't think any company that is involved with whether or not people live or die should be a for-profit company. The profit motive will ALWAYS conflict with what is in the best interest of the people. This includes pharmaceutical companies.

 

 

This is true that they are profitable. Big Pharma is the biggest profitable player ever. But - as the counter argument- if you remove profit motives for the actual players (insurance companies should be dismantled - this should be between people and doctors/hospitals) you remove incentive to continue. There has to be a balance here, and reducing regulation, not piling on more, needs to happen.

[Slartibartfast]

This is true that they are profitable. Big Pharma is the biggest profitable player ever. But - as the counter argument- if you remove profit motives for the actual players (insurance companies should be dismantled - this should be between people and doctors/hospitals) you remove incentive to continue. There has to be a balance here, and reducing regulation, not piling on more, needs to happen.

 

 

I totally disagree. Some of the largest medical innovations were done for academic or humanitarian reasons. Handwashing is one of the biggest medical innovations.

 

If there is less financial incentive would there be more attention paid to less expensive medications and treatments? My thyroid pill costs $1 a month, big pharma would LOOOVVEE for me to get a BIGGER BETTER STRONGER thyroid medication that costs $50 a month, but my $1 a month thyroid med actually seems to be helping.

 

Most Doctors are not Doctors because they want to make buckets of money. Most scientists are not scientists because they want to make buckets of money. Many have a true passion and real love for their field. They need more freedom to research their interests or problems they think they can solve rather than be stuck employed as a pharma employee looking for a new, more expensive pill to replace a cheap one that already exists. We need more government funding towards research.

 

Penicillin was discovered by scientist who had watched soldiers die from sepsis. Antiseptics were doing more damage than the infection. He wasn't looking for money, he was looking for a way to stop it. Doctors at Oxford University isolated it and worked with a lab in the US to produce it. I don't know that would have happened today, scientists from different countries and different institutions working together so closely, but Britain and the US shared the Nobel prize that year.

 

Where did the funding come from for research and development of Penicillin? The British and US Governments.

[busymotherof4]

I don't know how things will change when ACA starts but our experience has been that if a catastrophe does occur insurance is the difference between life and death. We had a family friend who got cancer and without insurance took 8 months to get treatment and he had to get it from the only ones willing to give it to him. He also had a long time to get a diagnosis. He didn't survive. I don't know if he would have lived anyway after all it is cancer but delay of diagnosis and treatment couldn't have helped. My father was diagnosed with cancer last spring. The only way to cure his was through a liver transplant. If he didn't have insurance he probably could have gotten the radiation and chemo but without insurance coverage he would have had to come up with $550,000 in cash to just get on the list and if they had determined that he wouldn't be able to pay for the medication and such after this would probably have kept him from the list. 6 weeks ago he got his transplant and is likely to live to a nice old age.

My 4 th pregnancy turned into an expensive venture. Due to a birth defect it cost about $60,000. This doesn't include a hospitalization when he was 6 weeks old or his surgery when he was a little over a year. Pregnancy also triggered gallbladder issues that ended in surgery also when he was a little over a year.

For this next year our family has chosen a high deductible plan because it limits our overall liability. We figure our max costs for our family will be around $10,000 and that is only if something bad happens. I will gladly pay quite a bit of money so that if something really bad happens to me or mine we can take care of it.

Something else to point out good health insurance doesn't guarantee that good medical care will be available in your area. My parents did have to travel to Mayo. If something requires a specialist especially for a child unless you live in a really big city you will have to travel. We have found that quality in towns of about 100,000 people is lacking.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the topic has been very civil and unpolitical so far.

 

 

Civil maybe? Unpolitical? I strongly disagree. Some posts are extremely political and it's impossible to answer them in a non-political manner.

 

I have no interest in "censoring" other adults (although, that is REALLY the wrong word, since I cannot censor you, even if I directly told you to shut up). I do have an interest in abiding by the rules of this board, so very freely given to us by a company with a direct interest in keeping things relatively neutral so that no consumer-set feels unwelcome.

[Slartibartfast]

:iagree:

It could also be added that when profit drives creativity there is also less motivation to look at whether the ends are worthy and whether the means to reach them are moral.

Heather, the issue of people not getting proper care is not a problem with insurance per se, but rather a moral/character one. The way a society treats its poor and suffering is a good indicator of the moral degeneracy of the people. Sure there are many organizations to which the rich can donate money and there are plenty of government programs that claim to take care of the poor, but I wonder if the only thing that does is remove personal responsibility from physicians who turn away patients under the impression that there are charitable organizations/government that will take care of them. The current system allows every physician to be a Scrouge ("are there no union workhouses? no prisons") and say, "Are there no free government clinics? Are there no public hospitals where the uninsured can go to? Are there no charities that help with medical expenses?" I say this because I know several doctors who really do make an effort to help as many people as they can and work with those who don't have insurance instead of requiring large pre-payments or simply turning them away and it puts those who behave otherwise to shame. I really don't think Obamacare will solve any of these issues.

 

 

I agree. I don't know that it will solve the problems, but I think it will make people more aware and may eventually lead to the change we really need.

 

The ACA is essentially what was proposed by the Republicans in response the Clinton's attempt at Universal Healthcare. This is the most conservative plan, I believe as time goes we will eventually move on to a public option or even universal healthcare. What was originally put forth by Obama was the public option, that would be my preference over what we are getting.

[Murphy101]

This is true that they are profitable. Big Pharma is the biggest profitable player ever. But - as the counter argument- if you remove profit motives for the actual players (insurance companies should be dismantled - this should be between people and doctors/hospitals) you remove incentive to continue. There has to be a balance here, and reducing regulation, not piling on more, needs to happen.

 

 

I agree insurance companies and employment based healthcare should be dismantled.

I have no issue with anyone making a profit off their labors. Even pharma and drs.

 

Civil maybe? Unpolitical? I strongly disagree. Some posts are extremely political and it's impossible to answer them in a non-political manner.

I have no interest in "censoring" other adults (although, that is REALLY the wrong word, since I cannot censor you, even if I directly told you to shut up). I do have an interest in abiding by the rules of this board, so very freely given to us by a company with a direct interest in keeping things relatively neutral so that no consumer-set feels unwelcome.

 

 

I didn't say you had an interest in censoring anyone. Never mentions censoring at all.

 

I don't think it's been political so far. People are discussing what they think might or might not happen when/if AHA goes into affect. We discuss healthcare and financial woes on this board all the time. They don't have to be political. Can they? Sure. But so far, it's going very well here and I for one have been learning some along the way.

[Mrs Mungo]

I didn't say you had an interest in censoring anyone. Never mentions censoring at all.

 

My first paragraph was responding to you. My second paragraph was a general statement on the thread, not meant directly for you. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I don't think it's been political so far. People are discussing what they think might or might not happen when/if AHA goes into affect. We discuss healthcare and financial woes on this board all the time. They don't have to be political. Can they? Sure. But so far, it's going very well here and I for one have been learning some along the way.

 

This is a very political post. I *cannot* answer its charges without getting political:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/441895-can-anyone-explain-how-obamacare-will-change-things-for-our-family-self-employed-oop-payments/page__st__150#entry4505619

[Murphy101]

So does the speculation factor cause it to b political?

 

Because ppl come on here all the time and discuss how they can't afford this or that or their dr/hospital billing and coverage problems. They talk about needing unemployment, foodstamps, Medicaid - all govt programs yet talked about in a non political manner.

 

I don't see this thread much differently.

 

A couple posters veered in that direction, but it didn't go down that path.

[misty.warden]

I'm on mobile so I can't tell which exact post Mrs Mungo was talking about being too political to reply to (secretly thinking it was mine though) and I don't know how SWB and the mods really rate "too political" since the ban post specifies posts having "nothing to do with homeschooling" so Talking about Ron Paul should be ok but not this issue unless we're including "how will this effect me if I am self employed to homeschool?"

 

I think we've all pretty much hashed wverything we can. Some will be more insured whether they like it or not (including higher rates for things they didn't even want covered), some will be lucky and getuch better cheaper insurance accepted by their local doctors, and for some of us nothing will change because a good deal isn't if you can't afford your copays. Some people still say "if you don't like it, get out!" with no hint of irony or sympathy. Some despair at the eventuality of it all and others remain optimistic. No one wins, and we're not trying to. I think that's why this hasn't been deleted. No proselytizing.

[TranquilMind]

My worry with calls for universal healthcare via national systems is that the government then gets to determine what qualifies as "healthcare." Without getting too detailed because it might turn political, I'll again just generally refer to means/ends with no conscience provisions on the part of providers or tax payers. That and there is always the question of what the proper role of government is in providing universal healthcare (again, do the ends - universal healthcare, justify the means - government providing said universal healthcare).

 

Mrs. Mungo, my understanding of the politics ban was partisan political threads, not ones that deal with more abstract matters. With a few exceptions, this thread seems to stay within the bounds of political theory rather than Republicans are such and such and Democrats are such and such. But then again, I'm probably wrong since I haven't been on the boards that long.

 

Yes and yes.

 

I do not want the government deciding anything for me really. Handle constitutionally limited matters: national defense, treaties, trade, laws that make sense, and above all, defend constitutional rights.

 

Other than that, get out of my business.

[TranquilMind]

My first paragraph was responding to you. My second paragraph was a general statement on the thread, not meant directly for you. Sorry for the confusion.

 

 

 

This is a very political post. I *cannot* answer its charges without getting political:

http://forums.welltr...50#entry4505619

 

Sure you could. You could simply respond to her (non-anecdotal) claims, and state how you see a different result occurring due to (name them) factors.

 

Simple.

[Mrs Mungo]

Sure you could. You could simply respond to her (non-anecdotal) claims, and state how you see a different result occurring due to (name them) factors.

Simple.

 

 

Sorry, the link was supposed to go to your post, #190. The one with all of the quotes and political points.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Sure you could. You could simply respond to her (non-anecdotal) claims, and state how you see a different result occurring due to (name them) factors.

 

Simple.

 

 

How can someone respond to the political quotes (below) without getting political in return?

 

"Yep, while I am glad it will work for you, I can't help but think of a couple of quotes that seem apropos here:

 

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. – George Bernard Shaw

 

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. – G. Gordon Liddy

 

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. – P.J. O'R

 

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. – P.J. O'Rourke

 

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. – Barry Goldwater (1964)

 

The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, "See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk". – Harry Browne

 

No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: "But what would you replace it with?" When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with? – Thomas Sowell

 

The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flop-houses and disturbing the peace. – H. L. Mencken"

[Joanne]

For us Obamacare will mean that we will HAVE to stay on state insurance. Which they just sent me an an@l-exam letter (am I allowed to use that phrase?) wanting me to SIGN for THEM to access everything I have -- they would be able to talk to bankers, employers, etc -- let's just advertise that we are broke to all our friends! (And we are not hiding anything, but really, we just requalified and if they'd get their heads outa their rears they would SEE that they have all the documents already.) Oh, and we have to have a 3rd party verify who lives here. Everyone enjoy being called [basically] a liar? How the heck would anyone else know who lives in my house? They'd write down whatever I told them. And it says if any one is self-employed (DH is) to "explain".

 

I'd like to add that my mother had cancer. Without insurance. She did see doctors -- actually got to choose her own. She was treated. The cancer was removed, she also did chemo and radiation. My parents did not go bankrupt. Money was tight, but I'm not sure it would have been 'better' paying a premium (money was always tight). They paid the bills off, slowly but steadily. The hospital board forgave a portion of their bill (I think a few others did too, and yes, some of the companies were unscrupulous - obviously set up to milk insurance companies). My mom had several years cancer free. Now, obviously affordable health care would be good, but I just don't think this is the way. I wanted to say that no insurance is NOT a death warrant.

 

My husband's medical bills are in excess of $100k. There will NEVER be a slowly but surely pay off. Never. He is 62; I am 46 with 3 teenagers and a new career (because I need to live and eventually have SOMETHING to take care of me when I can't work anymore.

 

No insurance can have devastating, ongoing, until death consequences. The old school idea that you can work and pay your way out of any kind of debt, including medical, is no longer valid. Should I get a 4th job?

[TranquilMind]

How can someone respond to the political quotes (below) without getting political in return?

 

 

 

Well, Mrs. Mungo linked to another post and I was quoting her. But if you don't like my quotes, then find some ones you find more appropriate and post those! I'll read them. Why not? I'm not personally threatened because people here do not agree with me. You are free to be wrong! (Just kidding! :boxing_smiley: )

[TranquilMind]

Sorry, the link was supposed to go to your post, #190. The one with all of the quotes and political points.

 

Ok, I looked at the link and saw the other post.

 

Well, post your own quotes that you find more appropriate. Refute my quotes and tell me why they are wrong, in your view (I think this would be difficult, but we are still in the realm of theory). Why would anyone object to that? I certainly won't.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Ok, I looked at the link and saw the other post.

 

Well, post your own quotes that you find more appropriate. Refute my quotes and tell me why they are wrong, in your view (I think this would be difficult, but we are still in the realm of theory). Why would anyone object to that? I certainly won't.

 

So in other words continue to break the no politics rule?

[Slartibartfast]

The President said he's come to like the term "Obamacare" :)

 

It still doesn't mean you get unbiased studies when you are searching for it.

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, I looked at the link and saw the other post.

Well, post your own quotes that you find more appropriate. Refute my quotes and tell me why they are wrong, in your view (I think this would be difficult, but we are still in the realm of theory). Why would anyone object to that? I certainly won't.

 

People do not want the thread deleted.

 

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/283299-a-word-about-political-threads/

[VaKim]

I have a couple questions that I think are on topic for this thread, if anyone knows.

My husband is a veteran and has whatever the VA insurance is. Does that count as being insured?

 

Secondly, I know kids can be on their parents' insurance until they are 26 (I think that is the age), but do they have to be? In other words, if you have a 19 or 20 year old unemployed child living with you, are the parents required to purchase insurance for them?

 

If not, what is required of them under this?

[FaithManor]

I have a couple questions that I think are on topic for this thread, if anyone knows.

My husband is a veteran and has whatever the VA insurance is. Does that count as being insured?

 

Secondly, I know kids can be on their parents' insurance until they are 26 (I think that is the age), but do they have to be? In other words, if you have a 19 or 20 year old unemployed child living with you, are the parents required to purchase insurance for them?

 

If not, what is required of them under this?

 

I think that some details of implementation are very unclear, but I suspect that the uninsured adult in your family will be lumped into your insurance plan even if that costs you more money, or under your family penalty if you do not have insurance so long as that young person still qualifies as a legal dependent. If said adult is not a legal dependent, then my assumption is that person will have to pay the penalty individually.

 

Faith

[Mimm]

Again, it's not "Obamacare." It's the Affordable Health Care Act.

 

astrid

 

Ok... but come on, everyone calls it that. :p

[QueenCat]

My husband's medical bills are in excess of $100k. There will NEVER be a slowly but surely pay off. Never. He is 62; I am 46 with 3 teenagers and a new career (because I need to live and eventually have SOMETHING to take care of me when I can't work anymore.

 

No insurance can have devastating, ongoing, until death consequences. The old school idea that you can work and pay your way out of any kind of debt, including medical, is no longer valid. Should I get a 4th job?

 

 

Your situation, as well as a few others, is the reason my view on the issue changed. No one should have to go through what Adrian, you, and your family are going through.

[QueenCat]

I have a couple questions that I think are on topic for this thread, if anyone knows.

My husband is a veteran and has whatever the VA insurance is. Does that count as being insured?

 

Secondly, I know kids can be on their parents' insurance until they are 26 (I think that is the age), but do they have to be? In other words, if you have a 19 or 20 year old unemployed child living with you, are the parents required to purchase insurance for them?

 

If not, what is required of them under this?

 

 

They do not have to be. Your choice. Our insurance does not go up by having our young adult children on our plan so do not assume that yours would. I'd rather pay a little more even if it did. Cheaper than helping them get good care if something should happen to them (and young people do have accidents, etc).

[QueenCat]

I think that some details of implementation are very unclear, but I suspect that the uninsured adult in your family will be lumped into your insurance plan even if that costs you more money, or under your family penalty if you do not have insurance so long as that young person still qualifies as a legal dependent. If said adult is not a legal dependent, then my assumption is that person will have to pay the penalty individually.

 

Faith

 

 

They don't have to be a legal dependent to stay on your insurance. Dh checked in to this for elder ds as we want to cover him as long as he needs it & he's eligible. I think though that you are probably right in that if they are not a legal dependent, they'd be dealing with it on their own taxes.

[Joanne]

Joanne, the situation you are in is heartbreaking and you are a much stronger woman than I ever could be. For what it's worth, the consensus on here does seem to be that the system is broken and needs major fixing. :grouphug:

 

I know that most people agree something is broken. What I was responding to in the post you quoted was the idea that you can slowly pay off medical debt under the "work ethic" theory.

[Murphy101]

My husband's medical bills are in excess of $100k. There will NEVER be a slowly but surely pay off. Never. He is 62; I am 46 with 3 teenagers and a new career (because I need to live and eventually have SOMETHING to take care of me when I can't work anymore.

No insurance can have devastating, ongoing, until death consequences. The old school idea that you can work and pay your way out of any kind of debt, including medical, is no longer valid. Should I get a 4th job?

 

 

I agree with you. I just don't think insurance solves that problem. My mother's less than 6 months of cancer care and death with insurance meant my dad sold everything he owned and still didn't pay it off. People with insurance file bankruptcy every day.

 

Your situation, as well as a few others, is the reason my view on the issue changed. No one should have to go through what Adrian, you, and your family are going through.

 

 

I agree no one should go through it and it's way my view is against it. I don't think anyone wants to see ppl go through that. Problem is many people have seen many people go through that even with supposedly great insurance.

 

They do not have to be. Your choice. Our insurance does not go up by having our young adult children on our plan so do not assume that yours would. I'd rather pay a little more even if it did. Cheaper than helping them get good care if something should happen to them (and young people do have accidents, etc).

 

 

For several years now, our insurance has been broken down to:

Single employee

Employee+ 1

Employee + 2

Employee + 3-4

Employee + 4 or more

 

Sometimes there is an employee +6 or more

 

Nm that not all families have a good relationship. Once I was 18, there was no way my parents would have done that. They wouldn't give income info for FAFSA either, which is a major problem if you aren't already married.

 

And from a legal perspective, I can't see how a grown adult can demand their parents give them insurance or supply financial info.

[tabrizia]

My husband's medical bills are in excess of $100k. There will NEVER be a slowly but surely pay off. Never. He is 62; I am 46 with 3 teenagers and a new career (because I need to live and eventually have SOMETHING to take care of me when I can't work anymore.

 

No insurance can have devastating, ongoing, until death consequences. The old school idea that you can work and pay your way out of any kind of debt, including medical, is no longer valid. Should I get a 4th job?

 

 

DS' medical bill are over $250K and growing since his accident. There is no way that DH and I would ever be able to pay them off. It is an insane amount, and yes DH makes a decent salary. We were fortunate in that DH has a good job and we have medical insurance, and we were able to afford the deductable that we have to pay for all of DS' expenses. Even that was a large amount, much more afordable but still a lot. I can not imagine how someone without insurance would ever be able to cover the bills of a catastrophic accident.

 

DS will now always have a pre-existing condition, even though he is mostly better, and within 5 to 10 years is unlikely to have any issues due to his accident, he will always be considered pre-existing, and under the insurance system before Obamacare/ACA he would have an extremely hard time ever finding health insurance if he has to get private insurance at some point in his life.

 

I am actually all for Universal Healthcare, I am not a huge fan of ACA/Obamacare, because I don't feel it goes far enough, but anything is better then the system we have now, profits should not be the deciding factor in healthcare.

[Slartibartfast]

Same here. I think it's a step in the direction of Universal Care, and I think those in power know it. They'll do it kicking and bawling and whining, but it will happen, and eventually people will look back in amazement at the naysayers.

 

 

 

Here too, I am all for Universal Care.

[Mom-ninja.]

It still doesn't mean you get unbiased studies when you are searching for it.

 

 

I never once said you would.

 

Geesh, I was just making a light statement about what Mr. Obama said because I thought it was funny.

[Slartibartfast]

I never once said you would.

Geesh, I was just making a light statement about what Mr. Obama said because I thought it was funny.

 

I am sorry. :(

[Mrs Mungo]

Ok, I looked at the link and saw the other post. Well, post your own quotes that you find more appropriate. Refute my quotes and tell me why they are wrong, in your view (I think this would be difficult, but we are still in the realm of theory). Why would anyone object to that? I certainly won't.

 

I can't because it would be an inherently partisan argument of the sort that is not allowed. Why is this so difficult to get through?

 

I have a couple questions that I think are on topic for this thread, if anyone knows. My husband is a veteran and has whatever the VA insurance is. Does that count as being insured? Secondly, I know kids can be on their parents' insurance until they are 26 (I think that is the age), but do they have to be? In other words, if you have a 19 or 20 year old unemployed child living with you, are the parents required to purchase insurance for them? If not, what is required of them under this?

 

First question-that probably depends upon what he has. is he just being seen at the VA or does your family have Tricare for Life or something like that? For the second question, parents are not required to carry an adult child on their insurance, but they usually can at little to no extra expense. If the adult child is not on the insurance of a parent or their parents, then the adult child must carry their own insurance policy or pay the penalty.

[misty.warden]

I can not imagine how someone without insurance would ever be able to cover the bills of a catastrophic accident.

 

 

They can't. You either make payments until you die, file bankruptcy, or the insurance company writes it off as a loss.

 

Mrs Mungo, everyone else has so far ignored the posts they didn't feel warranted a response, including the one you have been harping on for a while now as "too partisan" because of all the quotes. Yelling about how *we* can't see how partisan it is does not help anyone move on. Why is it so hard for you let it go rather than bringing it to our attention when we were seemingly all willing to move past that rabbit trail?

[Mrs Mungo]

Misty, I can't see how to quote on the mobile version, but some people asked which posts were partisan and then TM specifically asked me why I didn't dredge up my own partisan quotes and I answered her.

[TranquilMind]

You're right, I don't understand. You said you couldn't reply anymore because of the partisan issue and then continued replying complaining about it happening and when TM finally asked you what you were on about you chose to up your font size to yell at us all about not understanding why you didn't want to reply. Any way you cut it, no one else was taking up the argument but you.

 

This made me laugh. I was wondering whether anyone else was seeing this but me. :laugh:

[texasmama]

For those of you on restricted diets, the only thing this recipe has that might be a problem is eggs. I shared these with a friend who couldn't have dairy and thought they were the best. Another friend who had to go grain free found them to be a life saver. I have no allergies, but I make them to get my protein consumption up during pregnancy, otherwise I'd be constantly binging on carbs because of my chocolate sweet tooth. I have yet to tell DH what they are made of and he doesn't even suspect when he eats them. :tongue_smilie:

 

Oh and did I mention they are sugar free too?

 

Thank you for this! I have a recipe for black bean brownies, but it has sugar.

[Slartibartfast]

 

Sis, I'm sorry, but I can't take a man in a pink shirt seriously, even if he is wearing a kilt and carrying a sword.

 

 

Oh? I thought the pink shirt was a nice touch. :lol:

[texasmama]

Sorry to say but neither of these kilt men are really working for me. More, please. :D

[elegantlion]

Sis, I'm sorry, but I can't take a man in a pink shirt seriously, even if he is wearing a kilt and carrying a sword.

 

 

How about a man in black, with his mother at his side.

 

[misty.warden]

How about a man in black, with his mother at his side.

 

 

 

I think that settles the discussion quite thoroughly. :svengo:

[nmoira]

Sorry to say but neither of these kilt men are really working for me. More, please. :D

 

 

Ewan?

[texasmama]

Ewan?

 

 

The last dude with his mother works for me. :D Love a man with facial hair who is sweet to his mama. The kilt is just a bonus. I don't even know who it is....

[Slartibartfast]

The last dude with his mother works for me. :D Love a man with facial hair who is sweet to his mama. The kilt is just a bonus. I don't even know who it is....

 

 

That is Gerard Butler.

[elegantlion]

Ewan?

 

 

I found him wandering around while looking for Ewan, be right back.