What's new

Barbers & Doctors

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
Everything Dr. Martin A. Makary says in an article by Neil W. McCabe is probably accurate. Dr. Makary’s comments are related to his book:

I have not read the book; so I do not know if Makary covers several “healthcare” problems that I have railed against for years. My suggestions for solving those problems (reforming the healthcare system) did not call for tax increases, death panels, or socialized medicine. I always thought reform should begin by improving patient-care; coupled with real government oversight and severe penalties for medical malpractice including serious jail time for offending medical industry professionals and hospital administrators.

My reforms zeroed in on faulty diagnoses, administering the wrong medication, unnecessary surgery, stopping HIV/AIDS tainted blood from donors in Africa from reaching patients in American hospitals and so on. Dr. Makary agrees on unnecessary surgery in some areas.

First, a little bit about doctors when they were barbers:


FOUNDED SCHOOL OF SURGERY

In the middle of the 13th century, the barber companies of Paris, known as the Brotherhoods of St. Cosmos and St. Domain, founded the first school ever known for the systematic instruction of barbers in the practice of surgery. This school was later enlarged and became the model for schools of surgery during the Middle Ages. Many of the foremost surgeons of the times were students of the School of St. Cosmos and St. Domain. The establishment of this school was one of the greatest contributions ever made toward the progress of humanity. The oldest barber organization in the world, still known in London as the "Worshipful Company of Barbers," was established in 1308. Richard le Barbour, as the Master of the Barbers, was given supervision over the whole of his trade in London. Once a month he had to go the rounds and rebuke any barbers whom he found acting disgracefully or entering on other trades less reputable. The master of a city company not only had this power, but he successfully prevented unauthorized persons from practicing the barber profession. The Barbers Guild of the 14th Century was undoubtedly more powerful than any of the modern unions. The king and council sanctioned the Guilds and so they could enforce their regulations. It was not uncommon for violators of Guild regulations to suffer prison terms for their misdemeanors.

BARBERS AS SURGEONS

Up to the year 1416, the barbers were not interfered with in the practice of surgery and dentistry. But it was soon evident that they were attempting too much. It was impossible to expect ordinary human beings to competently practice surgery, dentistry and the various tonsorial operations. People began to complain that the barber-surgeons were making them sick instead of well. Many barber-surgeons resorted to quackery in order to cover up their ignorance of medicine and anatomy. These abuses came to the attention of the mayor and council of London. In 1416 an ordinance was passed forbidding barbers from taking under their care any sick person in danger of death or maiming, unless within three days after being called in, they presented the patient to one of the masters of the Barber-Surgeon's Guild. Until 1461 the barbers were the only persons practicing surgery. The practice of surgery was still in its primitive stage, but new discoveries were being made regularly and the barbers found it impossible to keep up with the new discoveries and at the same time maintain their skill in dentistry and barbering. The surgeons began to forge to the front and became increasingly jealous of the privileges accorded the barbers. But for a long time they could do nothing to prevent the barbers from acting as surgeons. In 1450, the Guild of Surgeons was incorporated with the Barbers Company by act of parliament. Barbers were restricted to bloodletting, toothdrawing, cauterization and the tonsorial operations. However the board of governors, regulating the operations of the surgeons and barber-surgeons, consisted of two surgeons and two barbers. Every time a surgeon was given a diploma entitling him to practice his profession, the diploma had to be signed by two barbers as well as two surgeons. The surgeons resented this, but the barbers were very much favored by the monarchs and preserved their privileges until the middle of the 18th century. Henry VIII, Charles II and Queen Anne presented the barber-surgeons with valuable gifts and raised many of them to high offices. Under a clause in the Act of Henry VIII, the Barber-Surgeons were entitled to receive every year the bodies of four criminals who had been executed. The dissections were performed four times a year in the Barber-Surgeons Hall which still stands in London.

ORIGIN OF BARBER POLE

The modern barber pole originated in the days when bloodletting was one of the principal duties of the barber. The two spiral ribbons painted around the pole represent the two long bandages, one twisted around the arm before bleeding and the other used to bind is afterward. Originally, when not in use, the pole with a bandage wound around it, so that both might be together when needed, was hung at the door as a sign. But later, for convenience, instead of hanging out the original pole, another one was painted in imitation of it and given a permanent place on the outside of the shop. This was the beginning of the modern barber pole.

HISTORY OF BARBERING

The Art of Barbering Through the Ages
Moving on to doctoring minus the shave and haircut

Dr. Makary touches on an important topic:


“What happened was that the book came out within weeks of the Institute of Medicine’s report that suggested that prior estimates of the number of people killed from medical mistakes far understated the problem,” he said. “It also estimated that 30 percent of all the things done in health care may be unnecessary.”
Does that 30 percent include deaths caused by infections unrelated to the reason the patient is in the hospital? If so, the scary part is that unnecessary deaths caused by infections are grouped with medical mistakes. Those deaths are more unnecessary than moneymaking procedures.

Multiple-occupancy rooms in existing hospitals has long been one of my complaints. My contention has been that single-occupancy rooms would go a long way towards reducing infections acquired in hospitals not to mention improving overall patient-care. More people die every year from infections they pick up in hospitals than die of HIV/AIDS. I believe the number is up around 20,000 a year. A few years ago the number was just above 18,000.

NOTE: Hospital wards evolved into multiple-occupancy rooms; logically, the next evolutionary step is single-occupancy rooms. No doubt the bean counters will oppose with the same arguments they used in support of wards.

I suggested that existing hospitals be given five or so years to convert to single-occupancy rooms. My single-occupancy suggestion contains a built-in stimulant for the economy; one that actually helps everyone rather than just the Wall Street crowd.

Every hospital failing to comply after the grace period has elapsed would lose ALL government reimbursements —— federal and state. Such a move toward reform on behalf of patients instead of reform designed to enrich insurance companies and hospital owners would spark a wave of new, “healthier” hospitals once the cost of new construction is compared to the cost of conversion. In turn, healthier hospitals must make for healthier patients upon discharge; thereby, cutting the return rate.

Since hospitals are profit-motive enterprises the owners could be given tax breaks to pay for the the transition. I would not give them a penny of taxpayer money whether they build new hospitals or convert existing ones.

Makary goes on to say:


The solution to the problem is transparency, the surgeon said. By taking advantage of electronic record keeping and making non-patient specific data publically available, people could make informed decisions—as they do for other purchases, Makary said.
After you are in the chair you tell the barber what kind of a haircut you want. I could be wrong, but I do not think Makary’s informed decisions means after the patient is on the table, nor does being informed beforehand bar the use of scare tactics in the first place.

And I’m pretty sure no doctor wakes up an informed patient to ask for permission to do more than originally agreed upon. Example: Surgeons tell patients that removing or repairing this or that is a piece of cake. They usually back up “piece of cake” with statistics —— sometimes called odds among the punting class. Then after surgeons get inside they hack away.

When something goes wrong doctors in the dock are protected by “I made a medical decision to save my patient’s life.” It is for that reason the American people should be suspicious of tort reform.

Doubly suspicious of politicians who call for tort reform without explaining in detail what it is they are reforming. I’d rather congressional leaders from both political parties crack down on medical industry butchery, coverups, and larceny, than call for tort reform that gives the incompetents and the butchers even more protection than they already have. That is tort reform I can live with.

Just to be clear. Riding herd on doctors and hospitals is one of the few good things lawyers do. Nothing reforms as effectively as lawsuits forcing charnel houses to straighten up and fly right.

In the same vein I can understand Republicans wanting to reduce the incomes of trial lawyers, one of the Democrat party’s core constituencies, but why would Democrats go along with tort reform? Could it be they fear lawsuits stemming from death panels?

Ultimately, haircuts and surgery are the customer’s decision not the doctor’s. A patient may agree to the initial surgery, but is never offered a choice after that. It is the things doctors do to patients after they agree to a treatment or procedure that needs reforming.

Bottom line: Patients should tell the barber/doctor what NOT to do after he’s inside, and get it in writing. What the hell, a smart homeowner first approves of a detailed list signed by a contractor before agreeing to the repairs. The contractor does not get paid for doing anything not in the contract. Your body needs a helluva lot more protection than does the building you live in?

Preventative medicine

Preventative medicine is one of the biggest ripoffs in the medical industry. Everybody gets a piece of the action. Just look at the drugs advertised on TV and ask yourself how much money is spent telling healthy people they need to take a drug to stay healthy. It’s no different than telling people they must eat spinach.

Interestingly, the first “eat for good health” campaign was a form of preventative medicine: “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Now, doctors are prescribing drugs that supposedly keeps them away!

As far as I know there are no statistics on the harm done, and the deaths caused, by preventative medicine. Over-prescribing preventative drugs is a much larger problem than is recommending unnecessary surgery:


“We’ve now got one of the largest doctors’ groups in the United States, the American Board of Internal Medicine, publishing a list of things they believe are overdone in their own specialty,” he said. “They are telling patients, look at this list, and if you are going to have something done on this list, think twice, it may not be necessary; talk to your doctor about it first.”

“To say that a third of what we do is not even necessary is quite a statement in an industry that values science, validity and precision,” he said. “What other industry misses the mark that often?” said the Baltimore-raised doctor.

“We have to step back and look at the global level at the whole system and say: ‘Look, 15 percent of stents are unnecessary, 25 percent of pace makers are unnecessary, we got neurosurgeons saying implantable devices are unnecessary 20 to 30 percent of the time,” he said. “Pap smears are overdone, hysterectomies, too,” he said.
One question. Where is the doctors’ group looking into preventative drugs enriching pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street?

Parenthetically, if you know nothing else about the relationship between Wall Street and the medical industry know this: The big money is in treatment not cure. Preventative medicine neither treats nor cures, yet it is rapidly becoming the most lucrative branch of the pharmaceutical industry, an industry aided and abetted by doctors.

Absentee owners

My cost-cutting reforms also said that every medical industry entity traded on Wall Street —— the casino not the thoroughfare —— be prohibited from receiving healthcare dollars directly or indirectly. Don’t bother calculating the odds on that reform being picked up by Congress? It’s a non-starter. No law curtailing even the most destructive form of absentee ownership will ever be passed in this country.

Put it this way: If companies building gas chambers and furnaces for the same purposes they were built in Nazi Germany were traded on Wall Street no law would stop them if it adversely affected absentee ownership. Note that federal bureaucracies in cahoots with federal and state courts have all but abolished real property Rights. At the same time property Rights are being wiped out the courts have strengthened the Rights of absentee owners.

Finally, socialized medicine was a non-starter until it included tax increases coupled with REDUCED patient-care because this entire healthcare thing is a battle between productive Americans and the parasite class. The parasites want more for themselves and the only way they can get it is to use the government to get it for them.
Nancy Pelosi’s 4,000,000 jobs proves my case.

There was never a pretense that said adding four million more workers to the system would improve the overall quality of patient-care. In all of the talk leading up the Affordable Care Act not one word was ever said about improving patient care; mainly because Socialists could not find a lie they could use. Unfortunately, death panels improve patient-care according to Hussein & Company.

Instead of reform the Democrats gave us socialized medicine and called it reform.

Here’s the link to the article I excerpted:


Book: Too many Americans victims of medical errors
By: Neil W. McCabe
10/18/2012 06:01 AM

Americans are victims of medical errors - Conservative News
 

atlasshrugged

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
149
Reaction score
21
Points
16
There is way too much going on in your post, but I will comment on a few things. You pointed out that you think multiple occupancy rooms should be removed and that medical records should be used to increase transparency. These two changes would bring huge expenses to healthcare. Medical record systems that work together would take years of time and hundreds of millions of dollars to create. I agree that both would improve healthcare, but I think they are out of our reach. I feel the same way about healthcare as a human right. I wish that everyone could have good healthcare, but I don't think we, as a country, can afford it.
 
OP
F

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
I feel the same way about healthcare as a human right.
To atlasshrugged: Rhetorical question: What’s the difference between the government taking your money and your neighbor taking your money with a gun in his hand to pay for his Rights?

It’s an entitlement not a Right when someone else is forced to pay for it. Note that not one Right in America’s original Bill of Rights had to be paid for by someone else. Those Rights are negative Rights according to Hussein. You appear to have bought into his positive Rights that must be paid for with tax dollars.

See this thread for a bit more about Rights:


 
OP
F

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
stopping HIV/AIDS tainted blood from donors in Africa from reaching patients in American hospitals
wtf?
To Ravi: Wtf does wtf mean in your little world? Does it mean you never heard about contaminated blood? or are you denying it?

American blood banks purchase a lot of blood from Third World countries; primarily countries in Africa. Thirty or so years ago the tragedy of using blood contaminated by HIV/AIDS was rampant. Safeguards were almost non-existent because blood banks are motivated by maximizing profits. Hospitals never showed an interest in making sure the blood they were giving patients was clean because our friends in the media never gave the scandal the coverage it deserved.

Elizabeth Glaser (1947- 1994), wife of actor Paul Michael Glaser (Starsky of Starsky & Hutch) contracted the disease from an emergency blood transfusion. The story of contaminated blood began to get some coverage after she passed away. I’m not sure what the situation is today.

NOTE: Call me cynical for mentioning this, but the more people with AIDS the more money the healthcare industry and pharmaceutical companies rake in. As I said in the OP “The big money is in treatment not cure.”
 

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
In all of the talk leading up the Affordable Care Act not one word was ever said about improving patient care;
Start with Title III ("Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care") and read from there. Most of the law is about improving care for patients.
 
OP
F

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
Greenbeard;6192100

Start with Title III ("Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care") and read from there.
To Greenbeard: The title of the bill is: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Death panels is the Patient Protection part, and no one in their right mind thinks that bill makes healthcare affordable.

Greenbeard;6192100

Most of the law is about improving care for patients.
To Greenbeard: Nothing in that bill improves patient-care on a practical level. None of the things I discussed in the OP is addressed.

Btw, how does funding Hussein’s personal goon squad improve patient-care? Originally, he called for a civilian national security force. In a speech on July 2, 2008 then-Senator Obama said:


"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Hussein’s personal army of “community organizers” was designed to be a tax-dollar-funded para-military force before it found its way into the healthcare bill under the name Ready Reserve Corps.
 

Greenbeard

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
6,871
Reaction score
1,217
Points
200
Location
New England
To Greenbeard: The title of the bill is: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Death panels is the Patient Protection part, and no one in their right mind thinks that bill makes healthcare affordable.
The "patient protection" bit refers to a broad array of consumer protections instituted by the law, including:

  • Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) and Uniform Glossary: Most health insurance plans and issuers must provide you with an easy-to-understand summary about a health plan’s benefits and coverage.
  • Consumer Assistance Program: State Consumer Assistance Programs help you file complaints and appeals, enroll in health coverage, and learn about your rights and responsibilities as a health care consumer.
  • Appealing Health Plan Decisions: You have the right to ask your plan to reconsider a denial of payment for services.
  • Preventive Care: You may be eligible to receive recommended preventive health services at no cost.
  • Patient’s Bill of Rights: The “Patient’s Bill of Rights” outlines consumer protections and gives you the knowledge you need to make informed choices about your health.
  • Children’s Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under age 19 due to a pre-existing health condition.
  • Doctor Choice & ER Access: You have the right to choose the doctor you want from your plan’s network or seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.
  • Grandfathered Health Plans: You have the right to keep your “grandfathered” health plan if you were covered before the health care law was enacted. Grandfathered plans do not have to provide some of the rights and protections under the Affordable Care Act.
  • Curbing Insurance Cancellations: Insurance companies can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake on your application.

The Patients' Bill of Rights, in particular, is itself a laundry list of protections and rights for consumers that were finally codified by the ACA:

The Affordable Care Act puts consumers back in charge of their health care. Under the law, a new “Patient’s Bill of Rights” gives the American people the stability and flexibility they need to make informed choices about their health.

The Patient's Bill of Rights:

  • Provides Coverage to Americans with Pre-existing Conditions: You may be eligible for health coverage under the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.
  • Protects Your Choice of Doctors: Choose the primary care doctor you want from your plan’s network.
  • Keeps Young Adults Covered: If you are under 26, you may be eligible to be covered under your parent’s health plan.
  • Ends Lifetime Limits on Coverage: Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans.
  • Ends Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children: Health plans can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
  • Ends Arbitrary Withdrawals of Insurance Coverage: Insurers can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake.
  • Reviews Premium Increases: Insurance companies must now publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes.
  • Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care – not administrative costs.
  • Restricts Annual Dollar Limits on Coverage: Annual limits on your health benefits will be phased out by 2014.
  • Removes Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Services: You can seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.
To Greenbeard: Nothing in that bill improves patient-care on a practical level.
I don't know what the new stipulation of "on a practical level" is meant to convey. Regardless, the ACA is chock-full of goodies to support better coordination of care, improve patient safety and limit medical errors and hospital acquired infections, measure/report and reward higher-quality care (including on measures of patient experience), support patient-centered primary care models, identify more effective treatments and interventions, improve care transitions for folks and build links to resources in communities.

Improving care is one of the law's primary goals.
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,743
Reaction score
9,796
Points
2,040
Wow Flanders, this is some of the goofiest nonsense I've read in a long long time. You gotta stop reading crap like this. And, please, stop posting it where others can read it.

See, the biggest problem with this is that some people are so gullible and so desperate to have their wacko beliefs reinforced, they could actually BEEE-LEEEVE completely untrue stupidity like this.

Whoever said that if its on the Internet, it has to be true, well, let's just say, they've been reading way too much of this kinda garbage.
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,743
Reaction score
9,796
Points
2,040
Oh but, Flanders, I really must ask you where you heard that the US is buying AIDS-tainted blood from Africa?
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,743
Reaction score
9,796
Points
2,040
And Flanders, would you mind posting a link to where, in the ACA, you found this little gem? Thanks -

Hussein’s personal army of “community organizers” was designed to be a tax-dollar-funded para-military force before it found its way into the healthcare bill under the name Ready Reserve Corps.
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,743
Reaction score
9,796
Points
2,040
In all of the talk leading up the Affordable Care Act not one word was ever said about improving patient care;
Start with Title III ("Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Health Care") and read from there. Most of the law is about improving care for patients.
Wouldn't it be nice if people would actually read about the law instead of only reading the nutter right wing sites that LIE about the law?
 
OP
F

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
Improving care is one of the law's primary goals.
To Greenbeard: Providing millions of parasites with tax dollar jobs is, and always has been, the primary goal of universal coverage irrespective of Pelosi’s spin:

Everything that follows is nothing more than implementing socialized medicine à la the system in the UK.

Improving patient-care and increasing the size of the parasite class so dramatically are economically impossible; hence, the need for death panels as a way to control costs:


Obama adviser admits: 'We need death panels'
Makes shocking admission about Obamacare, advocates rationing for elderly
by AARON KLEIN

Obama adviser admits: ‘We need death panels’
Nobody who talks about costs going out of sight ever includes the cost of paying all of those additional parasites:

It seems to me that four million more “healthcare professionals” in the system should improve the overall quality of care; thereby, making death panels unnecessary. That is the not the case. Bottom line: Patient care will deteriorate in direct proportion to the incomes paid to 4,000,000 more people being seated at the public trough.

Four million is a minimum number. In ten years it will probably be an additional eight million. Anybody who will turn 65 in 2022 should be scared stiff right now. Logically, and economically, death panels must lower the age for denying treatment. It’s either lower the age or fire a few million in order to reduce costs. Guess which way the government will go?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/media/254230-churchill-and-fox.html
Nice lists though. You’re home free if only the majority of Americans who want the ACA repealed buy into them.
 

Grandma

Geezer Chick
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
9,069
Reaction score
2,829
Points
360
Location
Under The Sky
Flanders, all hospitals try to have single-patient rooms. They only have so much space to work with, however, within those walls. Adding on extra wings or floors is rarely possible and would disrupt services during construction, not to mention being cost-prohibitive.

Maybe more funding could go to the Visiting Nurses program, they could look in on ambulatory patients every day. This saves the hospital space and saves the patients money, plus the patients usually heal better in the home environment.

I agree with the other posters, your source is as bogus as can be.
 
OP
F

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
7,628
Reaction score
743
Points
205
the cure all

To namvet: Nutty Nancy is always good for a laugh. I hope this bit brightens your day:

Exactly what had House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid inherited from their Republican predecessors when they took over the congressional gavels in January 2007? How about a nominal Gross Domestic Product that would grow by more than 5% that quarter, a Dow Jones index of 12,621 on its way to a high of 14,198, an unemployment rate of 4.6%, and a record 52 straight months of jobs growth? The national debt then was less than $8.7 trillion.

XXXXX​

It is understandable that former Speaker Pelosi has a special affinity for Dante Alighieri. On his terrifying journey into the underworld, he was assaulted by a she-wolf he could not escape (there is something allegorical here). In his Divine Comedy trilogy, Dante experienced Hell's nine circles of suffering (including lust, gluttony, greed, anger, heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery) -- all of which seem to thrive quite well within the welcoming confines of the Washington, D.C. Beltway.
October 21, 2012
Pelosi's Divine Comedy
By Micheal Kimmitt

Articles: Pelosi's Divine Comedy
 

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
63,743
Reaction score
9,796
Points
2,040
the cure all

Can anyone remember the name of the freshman teepotter congressman who threw a fit because his health insurance wouldn't kick in right away? He said he planned to vote against ACA even though his own TAX PAYER FUNDED health insurance insurance was almost identical and he was pissed that he had to wait a month. He whined that no one could go without health insurance.

What the hell was that little prick's name?
 

atlasshrugged

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
149
Reaction score
21
Points
16
I feel the same way about healthcare as a human right.
To atlasshrugged: Rhetorical question: What’s the difference between the government taking your money and your neighbor taking your money with a gun in his hand to pay for his Rights?

It’s an entitlement not a Right when someone else is forced to pay for it. Note that not one Right in America’s original Bill of Rights had to be paid for by someone else. Those Rights are negative Rights according to Hussein. You appear to have bought into his positive Rights that must be paid for with tax dollars.

See this thread for a bit more about Rights:


I don't think I made myself clear. Concerning healthcare as a right: how can we say something is a right if we are not capable of giving it to everyone? If we were able to treat every disease, then if we believed it was a right, we could claim it as such.

Healthcare is not a right. It is an entitlement. The simple fact that we can't provide it for everyone disqualifies it as a right.

I hope that makes my opinion clear because I agree with you. I volunteer at a free clinic and see dozens of people with iPhones. It bugs me, to say the least.
 

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top