Jump to content
  • Welcome to the TransPulse Forums!

    We offer a safe, inclusive community for transgender and gender non-conforming folks, as well as their loved ones, to find support and information.  Join today!

Abigail vs The NHS


Aggie1

Recommended Posts

 

Abi dropped a new philosophy tube about her struggles to get service through the NHS and puts a couple of cherries on top with a philosophical analysis of dysphoria and the laws of large organizations. Fascinating stuff.

 

Link to comment
  • Forum Moderator

This was so worth watching. I’m always impressed with the amount of creativity, logic, and ability she has to tell her story and tel it well.

 

After watching this, I realized just how lucky I’ve been transitioning here in the US but specifically in Washington State. Washington is probably one of the top places within the US to accomplish this . Sure there’s some red-tape but nothing like what Abigail and others over the pond have experienced. The transition process there needs a serious overhaul and soon.

 

Incredible video…thanks for sharing @Aggie1,

Susan R🌷

Link to comment

Interesting.  Makes me glad to live in the USA, even though the system here has high costs and the similar pain of being subjected to large institutions. 

 

When I needed to see a LGBTQ+ friendly doctor in another city, making an appointment was fairly easy.  It took a couple of weeks...not 18.  I received my prescription once the doctor figured out some of my medical mysteries.  Got cash or credit or the illusion of such?  Come right in.  Got an uncooperative doctor?  Fire the turkey and get another one.  Trouble with "Permission?"  Like the old song says...bring lawyers, guns, and money.  Insurance is a PITA, but my husband and GF seem to get things arranged quickly enough.  Charges too high?  Don't pay the bill, and argue until it gets adjusted.  

 

This video should serve as a warning for anybody who advocates for socialist medicine, "single payer" system, or similar schemes.  The US system may be bad in places, but it could be a whole lot worse. 

 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

This video should serve as a warning for anybody who advocates for socialist medicine, "single payer" system, or similar schemes.  The US system may be bad in places, but it could be a whole lot worse. 

There is no denying there are serious problems with the NHS in the UK.  Apparently gatekeeping for trans-people is a big one.  I am not convinced that some form of "socialized medicine" could not work.  The problem is, as with most things, the implementation.  For one thing, it would need to be adequately funded.  So money is involved as usual.

In the US things can work pretty well - if you are covered by adequate private Insurance.  Some here have even had their GCS covered.  

For me personally, that is not the case.  I am fortunate to be in the VA system at this time - which it could be argued is kinda socialized.  It has worked well for my hernia surgery, and cataracts; less so for my trans-care.

But I do know a lot of people in crummy jobs with no health Insurance, or huge deductibles that make it practically useless.

Sometimes I fear that the attitude here is "I've got mine - screw the rest of you."

Link to comment

NHS works fine from cradle to grave. I w

 

1 hour ago, Ivy said:

There is no denying there are serious problems with the NHS in the UK.  Apparently gatekeeping for trans-people is a big one.  I am not convinced that some form of "socialized medicine" could not work.  The problem is, as with most things, the implementation.  For one thing, it would need to be adequately funded.  So money is involved as usual.

In the US things can work pretty well - if you are covered by adequate private Insurance.  Some here have even had their GCS covered.  

For me personally, that is not the case.  I am fortunate to be in the VA system at this time - which it could be argued is kinda socialized.  It has worked well for my hernia surgery, and cataracts; less so for my trans-care.

But I do know a lot of people in crummy jobs with no health Insurance, or huge deductibles that make it practically useless.

Sometimes I fear that the attitude here is "I've got mine - screw the rest of you."

  

That's the impression I get talking to many from the USA that many oppose social medicine because they simple don't want fairness. I don't get the if you are  poor just crawl off and die attitude, that some have. We pay into our system our entire working life as part of our taxes in the UK, so if we are unfortunate enough to get cancer we get treated and  not billed or told our insurance doesn't cover it.  If your are wealthy you can get private medicine in the UK but it will be the same medics that give you the treatment.
GRS  is slow in the UK but usually works out OK.  

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Diana Stone said:

That's the impression I get talking to many from the USA that many oppose social medicine because they simple don't want fairness.

 

Perhaps we have a different definition of what fairness looks like.  I agree that the US system isn't fair, but social medicine doesn't seem fair either.  To me, it isn't fair to tax others heavily and have them pay for me.  There's an attitude that people who have money don't deserve to keep what they worked for... "just pay more taxes."  To me, that's theft, not fairness.  Its even more repugnant because it is enforced by the state.  A burglar at least runs the risk of getting shot, which makes him more honest and likeable than the tax man.   

 

This video clearly shows that a national healthcare system won't work out.  Handing something over to the state just makes for inefficiency.  That's what's happened in the US to a certain extent.  60/70 years ago, it was possible to stay in a hospital, have an operation, and pay for it out-of-pocket with no insurance.  Why?  Costs were kept low, and medicine was treated like a small-town business.  It isn't that way anymore, and it is no coincidence that government involvement in healthcare has simultaneously increased.  For several decades the big players (who are backed by the government) have made it unaffordable... and over-regulation has reduced what people can buy on their own without prescriptions and expensive appointments.  When I know what I need, I shouldn't have to pay somebody for the privilege of being able to purchase it.  Its like some weird medieval guild.  

 

In social medicine nations, they haven't reduced the cost...it just gets spread around.  They haven't reduced the power of the medical establishment, but have actually increased it.  That's not the answer.  We just need to have things cost what an average person can pay, with prices listed up front in a way average people can understand. 

 

What other business can you think of that doesn't tell you the prices up front, and sends you a huge bill later?  What other business (except lawyers, perhaps) talks its own specialized half-Latin language?  What other business can you think of where there is ZERO customer service, and the provider tells you what you can and can't have?  In what other business do the service providers have such massive egos, acting bossy like they own you?  What other business has such a small amount of competition? 

 

The big point of this video is to show that social medicine is NOT working for trans people, and that the system has serious issues.  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

I suppose you have to pick your poison.

 

100% state controlled? Quotas. 
 

100% free market. Only the “rich” survive.

 

Hybrid system. Tweak the definition of “rich”. 
 

I guess I’m in favor of any system that offers choices. Too many choices can complicate the administration process and increase costs. Too few choices can leave people underserved. 
 

There’s a Goldilocks Zone there somewhere. Not too hot, not too cold. Not too expensive. Not too complicated.

 

 The problem is that every election cycle the extremists on both sides take up the megaphone and drown out reasonable voices.

Link to comment

What we have now is not a free market.  Not even close.  It is a state controlled market, and the number of players is limited.  Big Pharma and Big Hospital makes the same profit everywhere... its just a matter of how tribute is squeezed from the people.  Elections don't make a difference because the oligarchs in every nation enable this.  

The Goldilocks zone must include removal of those who strangle us, rather than merely changing the method by which the criminals get paid.  

Link to comment

I suppose there is a tension between the absolute freedom of the individual, and society as a collective.  As much as we - especially in the US - want to believe otherwise, most of us are dependent on society at some level for our survival.  

Link to comment

Thanks for  the video, Aggie. I was not previously familiar with Abi. She's brilliant. 

 

There is intersection between stats on wealth gap among nations and "best healthcare systems" rankings. Digging a bit deeper, nations with market economies and smaller wealth gaps are less prone to be market societies. A market society is such that market economy bleeds into many/all aspects of civil life. We see that in the US where money will get you access to better education, healthcare, access to the justice system, etc. In market economies there is some central regulation by government, and various schools of thought differ on what optimal intervention should look like. There are myriad and dynamic factors to consider - none of this happens in a vacuum. I don't think it's reasonable to expect all folks in the US to bootstrap themselves into wealthy conditions else they get what they deserve. There have been massive inequities in the US, for example, from the very beginning which were partially enabled by society, economy, and government. It would be naive to believe we can simply reset conditions and assume all things are equal. I think it is equally naive to believe government will make regulatory decisions wisely when so much market economy has bled into all three branches, effectively privatizing it. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Vidanjali said:

Thanks for  the video, Aggie. I was not previously familiar with Abi. She's brilliant. 

 

There is intersection between stats on wealth gap among nations and "best healthcare systems" rankings. Digging a bit deeper, nations with market economies and smaller wealth gaps are less prone to be market societies. A market society is such that market economy bleeds into many/all aspects of civil life. We see that in the US where money will get you access to better education, healthcare, access to the justice system, etc. In market economies there is some central regulation by government, and various schools of thought differ on what optimal intervention should look like. There are myriad and dynamic factors to consider - none of this happens in a vacuum. I don't think it's reasonable to expect all folks in the US to bootstrap themselves into wealthy conditions else they get what they deserve. There have been massive inequities in the US, for example, from the very beginning which were partially enabled by society, economy, and government. It would be naive to believe we can simply reset conditions and assume all things are equal. I think it is equally naive to believe government will make regulatory decisions wisely when so much market economy has bled into all three branches, effectively privatizing it. 

It’s the guns and butter problem. There has to be a safety net but also incentives. There have to be rules agreed to by a majority and some way to enforce them. Not too harsh and not too lenient. Having said that, sometimes you have to rock the boat to get people’s attention. If the status quo gets too comfortable people become resistant to change and the rights of minority groups get trampled. But you can’t live in a state of upheaval for too long. 
 

The system has to allow people to fight for their rights.  it’s good to have choices. And the right to choose needs to be protected. 
 

one of the unifying principles in the military at least when I was in, don’t know about today, was “I may strongly disagree with what you believe but I will fight for your right to say it.” I remember this advice being offered to me when the military was coming under intense scrutiny. Police forces are facing the same dilemma today. The problem with force is how do you police the police? Even those opposed to the use of force will resort to the use of force to protest the use of force, and justify it.

 

Trans rights and trans healthcare is no different. It has to be fought for and defended and justified. And then we struggle to get back to the Goldilocks zone until the next battlefield emerges. And the battle we fought is forgotten. 
 

wash, rinse, repeat!

 

I’m starting to wax philosophic. LOL 😆 

 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Vidanjali said:

Thanks for  the video, Aggie. I was not previously familiar with Abi. She's brilliant. 

 

There is intersection between stats on wealth gap among nations and "best healthcare systems" rankings. Digging a bit deeper, nations with market economies and smaller wealth gaps are less prone to be market societies. A market society is such that market economy bleeds into many/all aspects of civil life. We see that in the US where money will get you access to better education, healthcare, access to the justice system, etc. In market economies there is some central regulation by government, and various schools of thought differ on what optimal intervention should look like. There are myriad and dynamic factors to consider - none of this happens in a vacuum. I don't think it's reasonable to expect all folks in the US to bootstrap themselves into wealthy conditions else they get what they deserve. There have been massive inequities in the US, for example, from the very beginning which were partially enabled by society, economy, and government. It would be naive to believe we can simply reset conditions and assume all things are equal. I think it is equally naive to believe government will make regulatory decisions wisely when so much market economy has bled into all three branches, effectively privatizing it. 

 Many people I know in the UK have gone down the private medicine route to transition and that's fine if they can afford it. But many others simply cannot. A few have basically put themselves in a position where they will be working until they drop to pay for GRS.  I started work at 15. The first job I had that paid a decent wage, I only got when I was in my mid 40s, then due to health issues I had to quit that which is how I got into making a living in music but that's been pretty much hand to mouth.  So my only route would have been via the NHS and that's usually a long wait.

Link to comment
  • 10 months later...
  • Admin

A serious issue that we have to overcome is the reluctance to trust the governments to administer a universal health care base for the country.  The old socialism motif is still very much at play and so is the idea that "I am paying for the other no-good, lazy alcoholic junkie child molester who got AIDS <any social disease> who needs to die quickly and get off the rest of the public dole that I am paying taxes on."  That POV is largely held in areas where medical practice is very sparse BECAUSE the underemployed and underinsured do not USE medical services that are preventative, and will not support medical improvement because circularly the subcompetent and time frozen doctors there who are not making close to the industry level of income and status and ones who have no incentive to provide better service.  Trans care in too many places is actually out nearer to Uranus. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, VickySGV said:

A serious issue that we have to overcome is the reluctance to trust the governments to administer a universal health care base for the country.  The old socialism motif is still very much at play and so is the idea that "I am paying for the other no-good, lazy alcoholic junkie child molester who got AIDS <any social disease> who needs to die quickly and get off the rest of the public dole that I am paying taxes on."  That POV is largely held in areas where medical practice is very sparse BECAUSE the underemployed and underinsured do not USE medical services that are preventative, and will not support medical improvement because circularly the subcompetent and time frozen doctors there who are not making close to the industry level of income and status and ones who have no incentive to provide better service.  Trans care in too many places is actually out nearer to Uranus. 

 

I disagree.  I don't want universal healthcare, and I absolutely will not trust the government to provide for my needs.  COVID was all the evidence I needed to figure out that the "public health officials" definitely do not have my best interests in mind.

 

75 years ago, medical care was affordable on a laborer's salary with no debts.  Appendicitis?  Fixed.  Broken bone?  Easy.  Minor infection?  Take these pills and you're good.  My husband's grandfather was a carpenter, and paid for major operations for his family out-of-pocket.  Now apparently we have all kinds of computers and gadgets, but giving somebody a basic cast or a few stitches costs 3 months' pay???? 

 

My husband's mother is now the main physician for our rural county.  She's the coroner, and also runs the clinic at the county seat.  She's been in practice since the early 80's, and maybe she's one of those "time frozen" doctors 😏  But her philosophy is that "common things are common," and common things should have common prices.  She and her nurses (one of whom is a trans friend of mine) have been doing stitches, prescribing basic medication, and other easy things that are 90% of the medical care our people need.  No surgeries yet, but maybe in the future.  Lots of people in our rural area don't have insurance, and they are able to pay for these services out-of-pocket.  The clinic runs at-cost.  This is a new thing, but over the last few months it has been working!  I'd rather not have Uncle Sam come in and mess it up, because it would be nice if we could export our model to surrounding areas. 

 

We HAD a good, affordable, private system in this country years ago.  We CAN have it again.  But to get there, we need less government rather than more, and less Big Pharma rather than more.   And I would suggest complete elimination of the CDC, the NIH, and the USPHS commissioned corps, along with repudiating all ties to the WHO, and dissolution of the AMA.  I would also favor vigorous prosecution of health "officials" who have ties to Big Pharma.  These things would be a nice start

 

Link to comment

I agree with @VickySGV. While I understand @awkward-yet-sweet's viewpoint, what awkward seems to miss is the fact that the cost of healthcare in the States is the result of capitalism and bought-politicians. If the States had a universal healthcare system like that of Japan, the prices for standard care would be affordable even to high school graduates working minimum-wage jobs. It's one of the reasons I expatriated to Japan. I've had medical events in both the States and in Japan. At least with Japan, they don't care to ask if you have insurance before calling the ambulance. The ride to the hospital is free! Everyone lives longer in Japan because the preventive healthcare is far more comprehensive than in America. (And the fact that most Japanese walk/exercise almost everyday too doesn't hurt...)

 

In Japan, the government ensures that approved clinics are given the subsidies to ensure they continue to function. Much like the schools here. Japan is notorious for its bureaucracies - for good or worse. It will keep a school open (on tax payer money) for as long as it has at least one student. Similarly, clinics are kept open as long as the city has residents. I'm not trying to sell Japan's system as somehow superior, but attempting to point out that without government, people in underserved areas would not benefit from the system designed to serve all. Japan's system sets the prices for all standard life saving medical procedures.  If it were left to the insurance companies and hospitals, the prices for "standard care" would be as bad as that seen in the States.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, LoRez said:

I agree with @VickySGV. While I understand @awkward-yet-sweet's viewpoint, what awkward seems to miss is the fact that the cost of healthcare in the States is the result of capitalism and bought-politicians. 

 

Actually, I don't believe that I miss that part at all. What we have in the USA is crony capitalism with a bureaucratic oligarchy rather than free market capitalism in a truly representative republic.

 

Of course things go sour when a certain group of people is exempt from legal repercussions and gets sweetheart deals with the state! The more control the government gets, the more of that we will see.  The system itself is not going to change just because universal healthcare shows up.  I believe that having greater access to the public purse will increase the corruption, as the underlying issues won't be fixed.

 

Link to comment

I went through the UK system.  My observations are its the same as before, but the waiting is many many times worse.  I went private for the surgery to speed it up.  But NHS for the rest.  As for gatekeeping I was briefed on what to say by the folk at a group I attended.  I am not going to say I lied but I did say all the right things they were hoping to hear to get through quickly. From GP visit one, to post op holding a Gender Recognition Certificate in two years.  I'd have no chance now to do it that quickly. 

 

I have absolutely no regrets (except maybe of surgery quality issues, not of having it done at all).  What I am perturbed about is that once you're done you're done, there is no opportunity to feed back success and be counted as evidence that the changes are good and the system works.  We just sort of disappear and have no way to lead the way for those who come later.  I guess they count no complaints as a success?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

 

Actually, I don't believe that I miss that part at all. What we have in the USA is crony capitalism with a bureaucratic oligarchy rather than free market capitalism in a truly representative republic.

Indeed, this is what happens in late-stage capitalism. 
 

Quote

Of course things go sour when a certain group of people is exempt from legal repercussions and gets sweetheart deals with the state! The more control the government gets, the more of that we will see.  The system itself is not going to change just because universal healthcare shows up.  I believe that having greater access to the public purse will increase the corruption, as the underlying issues won't be fixed.

Sadly, I must agree with you here. It cannot be simply fixed at the highest levels but from all levels. Unfortunately, I don’t see enough motivation to push for a comprehensive reform that covers the entire system from top to bottom. As you said, “crony capitalism” prevents people from mobilizing. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, LoRez said:

this is what happens in late-stage capitalism. 

Kinda looks like this to me as well.

But this discussion could get messy, and I'm not sure I want to go there in this place.  

I'm kinda tired, and probably go to bed anyway.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Who's Online   4 Members, 0 Anonymous, 95 Guests (See full list)

    • April Marie
    • AllieJ
    • MaybeRob
    • Betty K
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      80.6k
    • Total Posts
      768.1k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      12,019
    • Most Online
      8,356

    Breezy Victor
    Newest Member
    Breezy Victor
    Joined
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Amanda May
      Amanda May
      (75 years old)
    2. bleep
      bleep
    3. onaquest
      onaquest
      (59 years old)
  • Posts

    • April Marie
      Eye appointment. Mascara and liner gone?      
    • April Marie
      I agree with you, Raine. Having a label - a word with a definition - can be so very helpful in understanding yourself and others.   To me, the danger isn't in the label but, rather, in how much of society ascribes rigid norms of behavior, of dress, and of actions to them. The majority of us in the greater LGBTQ+ communities see a fluidity, perhaps, not a hard label but a sense of recognition that helps us understand ourselves better and to garner that feeling that we are not alone (although, there are even some communities of people within the greater LGBTQ+ that see more rigidity than most of us). And, as we all know, that can lead to a belief that anything that doesn't fit into the box that carries the label is wrong, or bad.   Wouldn't it be wonderful if, instead of labels, life had bar codes that offered a wider description instead of a word or phrase? Scan and see the possibilities and not just one internalized definition.   Well, this is way too deep for having just had one cup of coffee.   Thanks for opening the topic, Raine! So thought-provoking.
    • April Marie
      Oh, Birdie! I hope you are feeling well this morning and got a good night's rest. Sending good thoughts and prayers your way!!
    • Betty K
      I love that trans and gender-diverse folk have a bunch of labels for gender. To me, it shows that we’re making sense of it, really taking a close look at it, breaking it down. Of course as you explore something you have an urge to categorise it, that makes perfect sense to me. And, as you say, knowing what label applies to you helps you feel less alone. Coming from a time and place where there wasn’t even a word for trans, I can vouch for the importance of that.
    • RaineOnYourParade
      The problem is mostly on weekdays, when I have school. I wake up right before leaving for school, but I don't get hungry until a while after I wake up, so I usually skip breakfast. Eating too early in the day makes me feel sick, so I'm usually better off. I have the first lunch shift at my school (10:35-11:05, I believe), and I'm still not all that hungry, so I usually only end up eating about half of my lunch. I sometimes have a snack when I get home, but that's still 50/50 at best, and then I usually eat most of my dinner (though I sometimes only get through closer to 70%). I might eat a snack before bed sometimes, depending on the day. In addition to my morning sickness (not from pregnancy fyi lol, I've had it for a long time, it's just the best name I have for it), I get a lot of anxiety-induced nausea throughout the day basically the entire time I'm at school and my stomach doesn't settle all the way until I've gotten home usually, too.     I'm still at a healthy weight with this, and I eat better on weekend days since I can control the times I eat more, but I'm aware it's still not exactly a healthy eating schedule. It could still potentially lead to problems in the future, I'm assuming. Any tips on how to eat better for someone whose aversion(?) to food comes from a lot of nausea? 
    • Birdie
      CNA called an ambulance yesterday at my evening meds check. I was having chest pains and very short of breath.    They arrived shortly and I had an abnormal EKG and Tachycardia. I told them 'right bundle blockage' was normal for me from a previous event, and they saw nothing new.    They said it was my decision if I wanted to go to the hospital or not, but they really didn't see nothing new based off my history and the nitro was working well at relieving my discomfort. I decided to stay home and rest.    Night call nurse called me to inform me to rest and take it easy and the doctor will see me in the morning as well.    The CNA did remove my bra before the ambulance arrived saying, "just less to explain", and she of course gave them all my medical history referring to me as "he". The medic lifted my boob to attach the EKG lead and all three referred to me as "ma'am" the whole time.    After they left she said, "I was the only person in the room that thought of you as male?"   Birdie 💖
    • RaineOnYourParade
      Shadows in the corner, eyes wide
    • Carolyn Marie
      I think your view makes perfect sense, Raine.  Labels and categories can help us make sense out of something confusing, bring order to chaos, set priorities, establish groups of similar things, and many other uses.  Labels are often essential in hard science and the social sciences, too.  But they can certainly be misused and become destructive.   Carolyn Marie
    • RaineOnYourParade
      In some ways, things have been better, but they've stayed the same in other ways. I haven't had any big changes at home or been allowed to really start transitioning much, and my anxiety kind of impedes my ability to correct strangers and such. In some ways, I feel like my anxiety surrounding my gender got a bit worse following coming out to my parents.   However, it does change things with my friends, and it allows me to feel more comfortable and safe with them, like I could take off a heavy mask. For that, I'm very grateful, since that's one less place I have to be afraidi.
    • RaineOnYourParade
      I know a lot of people don't like labels, and they can be harmful, but I don't think they're all bad personally   If there's a name for something, you know you're not the only one experiencing it, and that can make things a little less scary   If I didn't ever hear the label "transgender man", I'd still be wondering why I felt the way I did, and what was wrong with me   If I didn't know labels like "pansexual", I would still be beating myself up for having feelings for people of all different genders   So, while this doesn't apply to everyone, labels did help me some -- the problem isn't labels in themselves, but rather when labels are used against people or as a stereotype    ...does this count as a hot take?  💀
    • RaineOnYourParade
      The metaphor definitely applies, but I doubt it was intentional (mostly due to the time of release).
    • Carolyn Marie
      There were 3.5 million public school teachers in the U.S. in 2021-22.  If you accept the estimate that trans folk make up around 1.5% of the population, that results in over 52,000 trans teachers.  That's quite a lot, actually.  I personally know four, including two college professors.    Carolyn Marie
    • Carolyn Marie
      Given that the story was published in book form in 1883 by C. Collodi, I think it's safe to say that the puppet and it's story has no relation to transgender issues, unless it can be shown that the author was transgender themself.   Carolyn Marie
    • Davie
    • awkward-yet-sweet
      Not me, but I know my husband has a slight curve due to bad discs and pain.  Perhaps its something related to your time in the military?  I know that soldiers tend to carry WAY too much backpack weight, and that can cause back and knee issues even for the young. 
  • Upcoming Events

Contact TransPulse

TransPulse can be contacted in the following ways:

Email: Click Here.

To report an error on this page.

Legal

Your use of this site is subject to the following rules and policies, whether you have read them or not.

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Community Rules

Hosting

Upstream hosting for TransPulse provided by QnEZ.

Sponsorship

Special consideration for TransPulse is kindly provided by The Breast Form Store.
×
×
  • Create New...