Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 12:15:02 PM   
EventideFortuna


Posts: 31
Joined: 10/8/2013
Status: offline
Calamity,

How many medical malpractice lawsuits or payouts are made in Germany

(in reply to calamitysandra)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 12:17:48 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
http://www.cklawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/vol86no3/Stauch-Cut.pdf


Those krauts don't fuck around like we do.  Think about this; their police force is called Crepo.

Their malpractice is same level as ours, not overwhelming in terms of systemic cost, what ours around 4% or so?

Ach, mensch, meine nerven, too long away from Germany.  CRIPO, pronounced Creepo.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/2/2014 12:26:03 PM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to EventideFortuna)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 12:26:40 PM   
EventideFortuna


Posts: 31
Joined: 10/8/2013
Status: offline
So from what I'm reading in the link your provided is there more a chance of legal repercussions then financial ones and it's likely that even if sued there will be no payday.

That's the main difference in health care costs between Germany and the us

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 12:30:33 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
not at all. that is fantasy.

http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/8686.htm
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/08/25/302803.htm
http://westvirginia.legalexaminer.com/medical-malpractice/tort-reform-fails-to-reduce-health-care-costs-or-improve-patient-safety/

But thanks for the laserlike analysis, based on hallucinations.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to EventideFortuna)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 1:55:04 PM   
sloguy02246


Posts: 534
Joined: 11/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EventideFortuna

FR,

You also have less lawsuits which is why medical care costs what it does. At some hospitals the cost of medical malpractice insurance per surgeon (that they pay out of pocket) is around 1.6 million dollars, So doctors have to charge more because some idiot sued because his scar was 3mm longer then the dr said. If less medical malpractice suits were filed for trivial bullshit, the cost of that insurance would go down along with healthcare.

On my insurance the procedure listed above would be 17k, and id be responsible for about 300 dollars. On my mothers insurance it would be about 29k, and shed have to pay 4500.


I agree that many such lawsuits are prompted by opportunistic patients looking for a big payday, but I also believe that jury awards are a big part of the problem, even where the doctor is found to be at fault.
If the harm done was relatively small and posed no short or long term threat to a patient's general health or life expectancy, the doctor may be guilty, but not guilty to the point of a 6 or 7 figure jury award.


(in reply to EventideFortuna)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 4:06:12 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I agree that many such lawsuits are prompted by opportunistic patients looking for a big payday, but I also believe that jury awards are a big part of the problem, even where the doctor is found to be at fault.
If the harm done was relatively small and posed no short or long term threat to a patient's general health or life expectancy, the doctor may be guilty, but not guilty to the point of a 6 or 7 figure jury award.


This is not part of the problem at all. It costs $20K to bring a medical malpractice lawsuit in the USA, and lawyers screen them. There are very few frivolous claims, and often victims of medical malpractice are just that: victims -- not "opportunistic patients."

Thanks to the heavy hand of government, jury decisions are now often highly regulated by tort reform. Tort reform is the big friend of doctors and insurance companies, not patients, whose insurance costs have not been lowered anywhere by such measures.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 1/2/2014 4:08:44 PM >

(in reply to sloguy02246)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 4:22:44 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
I read this in the NYT:

But the nation is fundamentally handicapped in its quest for cheaper health care: All other developed countries rely on a large degree of direct government intervention, negotiation or rate-setting to achieve lower-priced medical treatment for all citizens. That is not politically acceptable here. “A lot of the complexity of the Affordable Care Act arises from the political need in the U.S. to rely on the private market to provide health care access,” said Dr. David Blumenthal, a former adviser to President Obama and president of the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that focuses on health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/sunday-review/health-cares-road-to-ruin.html

--------

The author of that piece has been chronicling the rip-off prices of healthcare in the USA throughout 2013, and the primary reason we are stuck with such insane costs is American Exceptionalism. An abstract sense of individual freedom along with the right-wing hard-on for "less-government" equals the highest priced healthcare in the world. The exploding costs are simply not sustainable.

< Message edited by cloudboy -- 1/2/2014 4:24:21 PM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 4:47:20 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
Can you imagine the scream of conniptions exploding if someone were to make health care a human right, as an amendment??
There would be blood on the streets.
And man that is fucking sad...For the US....business as usual.
kaching

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to cloudboy)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 5:03:17 PM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: calamitysandra
I did some searching, and an appendectomy, including a 3 day hospital stay works out to something between 2000 and 3000 Euro in Germany.


If that appendectomy had been performed in the USA it would have been much cheaper, Sandra. This is because the free market always leads to greater competition and lower costs to the consumer. For the same reason, it would have been done much more efficiently. Finally, the patient would have woken up after the surgery feeling immensely grateful that his life had not been interfered with by a Stalinist.


_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to calamitysandra)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/2/2014 6:33:47 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
quote:

ORIGINAL: calamitysandra
I did some searching, and an appendectomy, including a 3 day hospital stay works out to something between 2000 and 3000 Euro in Germany.

If that appendectomy had been performed in the USA it would have been much cheaper, Sandra. This is because the free market always leads to greater competition and lower costs to the consumer. For the same reason, it would have been done much more efficiently. Finally, the patient would have woken up after the surgery feeling immensely grateful that his life had not been interfered with by a Stalinist.


If only we had a market that really was free...


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 6:35:24 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Yeah, never was, never will be, and is not now, nowhere on earth.   So, rather than touting free market theories and jingos, which are wholly absent of any usefulness or facts, lets shitcan the fantasy, and concentrate on what is, was, and can be, in economics.

The rest of the world don't play free market, nor free trade, and we are getting graped by our pretending that we are based on it (we were not---note Mt. Rushmore, every fucking one of them blockheads a protectionist (Jefferson wised up after the war of 1812).)

We were not a country found upon fuckin Ayn Randisms (a russian, a commie, right) Nor misreadings of Adam Smith.  Nor any other European scribbler.

Let's go back to what worked for us. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 7:29:18 AM   
TieMeInKnottss


Posts: 1944
Joined: 9/6/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EventideFortuna

FR,

You also have less lawsuits which is why medical care costs what it does. At some hospitals the cost of medical malpractice insurance per surgeon (that they pay out of pocket) is around 1.6 million dollars, So doctors have to charge more because some idiot sued because his scar was 3mm longer then the dr said. If less medical malpractice suits were filed for trivial bullshit, the cost of that insurance would go down along with healthcare.



It is not so much the lawsuits as the settlements. Years ago people only used as a last resort. Once it became a gamble with decent odds of winning MORE people sued. The difference was that insurance companies stopped going to court even when they knew they (& the doctor) did nothing wrong. It was cheaper and less risky to give the person a lump sum and have them sign a non-disclosure document than to have a long trial... Once the "ambulance chasers" and the less honest "victims" saw deep pockets and more willing to settle...every person who had a "claim" started asking for millions. That scar that was 3mm too long? Paid you a half million and your attorney one third of that... Who cared if the "rich doctor" had to now pay a higher insurance premium...

(in reply to EventideFortuna)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 8:08:03 AM   
leonine


Posts: 409
Joined: 11/3/2009
From: [email protected]
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
There is no evidence that German patients get worse results.

That's actually an understatement. Many different studies have found the same result: US medical outcomes are the worst in the developed world. In some areas they're down at Third World levels.

_____________________________

Leo9


Gonna pack in my hand, pick up on a piece of land and build myself a cabin in the woods.
It's there I'm gonna stay, until there comes a day when this old world starts a-changing for the good.
- James Taylor

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 8:23:54 AM   
leonine


Posts: 409
Joined: 11/3/2009
From: [email protected]
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I have seen no proof, and no one has been able to show any, that costs in the US will drop if we adopt a national system. That your costs are lower isn't proof that ours will drop, as your costs are lower because you've had lower cost inflation since inception. If you have proof otherwise, post it, and I'll take it into account. This is not the first time I've asked P&R for this, either.


But why do you think we have that lower cost inflation? Blind luck? US doctors and nurses are not paid five times as much as European. Our drugs mostly come from the same few manufacturers. Where are those extra costs coming from, if not from the system?

So far as I can see, there are two causes. One is that the insurance system vastly multiplies the paper-pushers, form-fillers, fact-checkers and general administrative overhead, to an extent that makes nonsense of the theory that private enterprise does things more efficiently. (And that's not even considering the whole departments of sales and advertising that just don't exist in national healthcare.)

The other is that with so many loosely connected layers of negotiation between the consumer and supplier, there can be no meaningful competition or other forces to hold down costs. Everyone pads the bills and passes them on, and the final payers have no way to judge if they could have done better down the road. (Leaving aside the fact that nobody can shop around when their appendix is about to burst.)

Contrariwise, a Department of Health that pays the bills itself can deal face to face with hospitals and drug companies, with all the buying clout of being by far their biggest customer, and with a Minister of Health demanding the best possible deal.

I'd say the figures speak for themselves. What do you think they say?

_____________________________

Leo9


Gonna pack in my hand, pick up on a piece of land and build myself a cabin in the woods.
It's there I'm gonna stay, until there comes a day when this old world starts a-changing for the good.
- James Taylor

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 10:31:22 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I have seen no proof, and no one has been able to show any, that costs in the US will drop if we adopt a national system. That your costs are lower isn't proof that ours will drop, as your costs are lower because you've had lower cost inflation since inception. If you have proof otherwise, post it, and I'll take it into account. This is not the first time I've asked P&R for this, either.

But why do you think we have that lower cost inflation? Blind luck? US doctors and nurses are not paid five times as much as European. Our drugs mostly come from the same few manufacturers. Where are those extra costs coming from, if not from the system?
So far as I can see, there are two causes. One is that the insurance system vastly multiplies the paper-pushers, form-fillers, fact-checkers and general administrative overhead, to an extent that makes nonsense of the theory that private enterprise does things more efficiently. (And that's not even considering the whole departments of sales and advertising that just don't exist in national healthcare.)
The other is that with so many loosely connected layers of negotiation between the consumer and supplier, there can be no meaningful competition or other forces to hold down costs. Everyone pads the bills and passes them on, and the final payers have no way to judge if they could have done better down the road. (Leaving aside the fact that nobody can shop around when their appendix is about to burst.)
Contrariwise, a Department of Health that pays the bills itself can deal face to face with hospitals and drug companies, with all the buying clout of being by far their biggest customer, and with a Minister of Health demanding the best possible deal.
I'd say the figures speak for themselves. What do you think they say?


Here's the thing, though, leonine: If we adopt the same or a similar system as the UK, and our costs don't drop, we'll be taxing ourselves upwards of 17% for "NI." That doesn't make anything "more affordable," it just shifts the costs. Maybe a few years down the road, our costs won't be spiraling at as high a rate, but we'll still be spending a lot more than anyone else. Assuming a medical inflation equal to the UK's, we'll still be spending 9%+ more per year than the UK.

I'm all for reducing our medical inflation, but I'm also looking at reducing costs in the short term, not just reducing costs compared to WTWB©. It's like the draconian spending cuts from the sequester that really were just reductions in spending increases, not actual spending cuts.

If we can solve the problem of why our costs are so much higher, and reduce them to more sane levels, I think we'll also find the methodology for reducing medical inflation, too.

If it ends up being only a nationalized health system can do that, well, then, I'll support a Constitutional Amendment allowing the Federal Government to nationalize the health care system.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to leonine)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 12:29:30 PM   
susie


Posts: 1699
Joined: 11/21/2004
Status: offline
An obvious way to reduce costs is through buying power. The costs of providing a product will be higher if it is purchased by say 5,000 different customers than if the same amount of product is supplied to one customer. Admin costs etc are reduced so the supplier can reduce the cost to the single purchaser.

This is how in the UK the NHS is able to obtain items at lower rates than the private sector is able to obtain. Multiply that by all the products used and of course the cost of running a national organisation will be lower than running an individual operation.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 12:33:04 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
An obvious way to reduce costs is through buying power. The costs of providing a product will be higher if it is purchased by say 5,000 different customers than if the same amount of product is supplied to one customer. Admin costs etc are reduced so the supplier can reduce the cost to the single purchaser.
This is how in the UK the NHS is able to obtain items at lower rates than the private sector is able to obtain. Multiply that by all the products used and of course the cost of running a national organisation will be lower than running an individual operation.


Did switching over to the NHS allow the UK to enjoy lower costs? Every graph I've seen shows that's not the case. If the UK didn't see cost reductions, then what makes anyone think the US will?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to susie)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 12:39:29 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I have seen no proof, and no one has been able to show any, that costs in the US will drop if we adopt a national system. That your costs are lower isn't proof that ours will drop, as your costs are lower because you've had lower cost inflation since inception. If you have proof otherwise, post it, and I'll take it into account. This is not the first time I've asked P&R for this, either.

But why do you think we have that lower cost inflation? Blind luck? US doctors and nurses are not paid five times as much as European. Our drugs mostly come from the same few manufacturers. Where are those extra costs coming from, if not from the system?
So far as I can see, there are two causes. One is that the insurance system vastly multiplies the paper-pushers, form-fillers, fact-checkers and general administrative overhead, to an extent that makes nonsense of the theory that private enterprise does things more efficiently. (And that's not even considering the whole departments of sales and advertising that just don't exist in national healthcare.)
The other is that with so many loosely connected layers of negotiation between the consumer and supplier, there can be no meaningful competition or other forces to hold down costs. Everyone pads the bills and passes them on, and the final payers have no way to judge if they could have done better down the road. (Leaving aside the fact that nobody can shop around when their appendix is about to burst.)
Contrariwise, a Department of Health that pays the bills itself can deal face to face with hospitals and drug companies, with all the buying clout of being by far their biggest customer, and with a Minister of Health demanding the best possible deal.
I'd say the figures speak for themselves. What do you think they say?


Here's the thing, though, leonine: If we adopt the same or a similar system as the UK, and our costs don't drop, we'll be taxing ourselves upwards of 17% for "NI." That doesn't make anything "more affordable," it just shifts the costs. Maybe a few years down the road, our costs won't be spiraling at as high a rate, but we'll still be spending a lot more than anyone else. Assuming a medical inflation equal to the UK's, we'll still be spending 9%+ more per year than the UK.

I'm all for reducing our medical inflation, but I'm also looking at reducing costs in the short term, not just reducing costs compared to WTWB©. It's like the draconian spending cuts from the sequester that really were just reductions in spending increases, not actual spending cuts.

If we can solve the problem of why our costs are so much higher, and reduce them to more sane levels, I think we'll also find the methodology for reducing medical inflation, too.

If it ends up being only a nationalized health system can do that, well, then, I'll support a Constitutional Amendment allowing the Federal Government to nationalize the health care system.


We have been through this before desi.

The biggest problem with the US is the sheer fact that nobody will embrace anything new and go the whole 9 yards with it on a country-wide scale.
It's the same with gun control.
What we did, Australia did, and few other countries did (to a greater or lesser degree), was to roll out a new law applicable to everyone across the land. We did it at the flick of a pen - a new law put into place across the country, instantly. 
What do the US do??
They apply a half-hearted piece of law in a tiny few districts which is guaranteed failure.

The same with Obummercare.
The numbers everywhere that social medicine is in place makes the US healthcare system look like the biggest rip-off jerks in the universe.
And Obama is making the same old mistake that all your other law makers do - only half-heartly roll out a small addition to the already money-grabbing insurance-based system you have there.

What you need to do is like everyone else did.
Whatever model you choose to use (UK/Canada/Aus/NZ etc), you need to enable it like a wall-to-wall fitted carpet.
That means completely obliterating insurance based healthcare and leave that as optional.
Drop the fines if you don't have any (because it's no longer applicable).
And apply the equivalent of NI across the board to pay for it; no exceptions.
Cap the jury awards to sensible level.
And you don't do this over a gradual roll-over period either.
You set a nearby date and that's when it all happens.. all of it, all at once, otherwise it's guaranteed to fail.


What you will find is almost immediate short-term reductions and long-term financial planning won't be such a crap-shoot with the numbers (negotiated and vastly reduced costs due to almost monopolistic coverage).
What we can't give you is absolute concrete proof because that can't happen (in your eyes) unless you see it for yourself and that ain't gonna happen until it gets implemented over there - properly.

If you shove a stick of dynamite under a can of beans and light the fuse, surely most (if not all) of them are gonna get splatted to the four winds when the dynamite goes off??
Same with social healthcare.
Everywhere it's used it has shown that the costs are driven down, quite dramatically.
And what's more, the cost to the end-user is a mere fraction of private healthcare premiums and there are no exclusions to worry about.
So.... if the US were to adopt one of the working models (or some hybrid), it'd be like lighting another stick of dynamite under a can of beans.
What's the chances of it doing the same thing as it's aways done everywhere else??
Pretty high I'd say.
What you are asking for as 'proof' is the evidence of the splattered can before the fuse is even lit.
Can't be done. All we can do is show the evidence of previous incarnations.

Essentially, you are asking for the impossible.
And a lot of how it turns out will be down to how it's implemented.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 12:41:19 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
it showed them controlling costs, overlay their graph with ours.  people cant or wont control inflation and other upward pressures on the economy, nor are any graphs I've seen normalized.

You aren't very far along in the econ studies, I see.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day - 1/3/2014 12:48:16 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
An obvious way to reduce costs is through buying power. The costs of providing a product will be higher if it is purchased by say 5,000 different customers than if the same amount of product is supplied to one customer. Admin costs etc are reduced so the supplier can reduce the cost to the single purchaser.
This is how in the UK the NHS is able to obtain items at lower rates than the private sector is able to obtain. Multiply that by all the products used and of course the cost of running a national organisation will be lower than running an individual operation.


Did switching over to the NHS allow the UK to enjoy lower costs? Every graph I've seen shows that's not the case. If the UK didn't see cost reductions, then what makes anyone think the US will?

What graphs are you comparing desi??

Costs will always rise according to the markets.
Is that wht you are saying?
It is always rising so therefore never a drop in costs?
The costs of the medicine were on a par with everyoine else.
The US went the private route.
The UK, Canada, Auz, NZ etc went the single-payer route.
Yes, all the cost are rising.
We are all supplied by the same small number of companies for the drugs, the buildings, the R&D.
Now compare the costs of the single payer system to those in the US.

Same input all round. Ergo, identical starting point.
US costs are several orders of magnitude greater than any single-payer system.
Yes, it shifts expense from the personal to the government purse.
End cost to the overall 'thing' (whatever you are measuring), by power of monopoly and number, single-payer systems pay far less for the identical 'thing' than the US does.
That's about as much proof as you can get.

Same input from the same companies, reduced cost at the target.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: 20 yr olds Medical bill...viral of the day Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125