O/T: One Down

Page 4 of 14  
On 10 Nov 2009 19:33:08 GMT, Puckdropper <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:>> You have that backwards. The reason old folks get reading glasses is

Isn't that hind-sight an euphemism for "cautious"?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 10, 1:00 pm, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Not really more far-sighted, rather less near-sighted. The normal focal length doesn't change much but the ability to change focus does (and fast, in my case).
BTW, my brother's normal focus has always been "past infinity". I always thought that was pretty far-sighted. ;-)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Guess I'm lucky in that regard. I take my glasses off to read and focus properly as well as to focus on small minute things. Glasses required starts at computer screen distance.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I too, have avoided bifocals. I cannot see standard print without reading glasses but my normal vision is still just good enough to cope. My wife has bifocals and thinks they are great. She also tried transitional trifocals, (at least I think that's what they are called, ) which have a graduated seamless transition in focal length. She tried adapting for about 3 months then went back to the bifocals.
diggerop
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seconds. Honest, my first pair were regular with the line type. I drove home with them, sat down and read the newspaper easier than I had in months. When I switched to progressive, it took about a day to get used to them for everything, but it was easier using the computer than the regular bi-f's.
I hear stories that some people have problems though. With progressive, if you don't like them, they will replace them at NC.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:55:07 -0500, the infamous "Ed Pawlowski"

You obviously don't have the need for a full-lens prescription. I'm still very active and use every bit of it most minutes of the day. I spit on Varilux' grandmother's shadow.
---------------------------------------------------- Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary ===================================================
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

With 20-400 vision. I only wear my glasses when I want to see. I even wear them when I get up to pee in the middle of the night. Everyone is different, but I like having the progressives.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Seems to be a very person specific thing. I've spoken with folks who, like you, absolutely love 'em and others, like Larry, who could not wear them for the reason stated even after a protracted attempt to adapt.
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"J. Clarke" wrote:

They don't pass muster.
Have used the services of an opthamologist for many years and Wal-Mart doesn't have any on staff.
At this point in my life don't plan on changing.

Maybe so, but I fit the 20%, not the 80% of the market.
Have a very difficult face to fit and also require a large lens to look right on my face.
As a result, wear RayBan type aviator frame which requires an oversize blank.
Have worn a photo gray lens for year which negates the requirement for sun glasses, but does require glass lens and Corning is the only game in town.
Require frequent adjustment of frame, thus local support is required.
For those who fit the 80% market share, on line may be a good deal.
For those of us in the 20% market share, not so much.
Lew
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is the glass because of the oversize requirement? Photo gray plastic is readily available. I've been wearing Transitions for many years and like the freedom from swapping to sunglasses.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

Weight doesn't seem to be a problem for me.
Lew
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 01:20:58 -0800, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"

I got 3 pairs for just under $600 the last time I saw an opto. 1 single vision reading, one bifocal computer, and one bifocal full time wear.
BUT, had I gone to WalMart's opto center, it would have cost $50 for the exam, $8-40 for each frame, and I think $20 a pop for lenses. Middle of the road would have been $170, a much better deal. But the first one was done via my barter club, so I used up saved barter bucks instead of my cash. It was worth it at the time, but I may go to Wally World on the next visit.
I think that if the gov't is going to get into the insurance profession, it should have its own medical staff and hospitals so it can control costs and eliminate the speaking weasels (attorneys) who have priced doctors out of our reach. Free (or $5) clinics, like we used to have in CA in the '80s, would eliminate a majority of hospital visits. The gov't could pay medical school costs and housing for doctors and nurses who would work for the system for a certain amount of years. That has to be cheaper (by 80%?) than what we have now.
-- The Smart Person learns from his mistakes. The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others. And then there are all the rest of us... -----------------------------------------------------
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

These places are all over the US:
http://www.twopair.com /
- Doug
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My bad. I should have phrased that better. Perhaps if I had said no direct charge to the individual being treated? Federal Government spending, is of course, funded by the taxpayer.

I'm not well versed in the optical care side, despite wearing prescription glasses myself. I believe those on social security incur no direct cost, - the rest of us do. Costs don't seem very high to me, they may well be subsidised in part by the government, but I am just guessing. In addition, in my case, my health fund reimbursed me most of the cost.
diggerop
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You quoted it yourself. It's GDP and those are taxes.Obviously he was referring some something like noticeable monthly out of pocket expenses. In other words, if you are a citizen buy essentially making zero income, you can still get needed medical treatment.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
diggerop wrote: ...

...
Yes, but the population of Australia is less than or roughly equivalent to that of the three largest states in the US--CA is almost 50% the size alone. The overall US population is almost 15X that.
Doubt seriously the success there would scale nearly as well to the US on size and demographics.
I'd love to think whatever they end up doing will have such a miraculous happy ending but can't see how it can possibly be w/ the cost models they're making up to support it and the requirements on insurance companies.
--
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's back to the same old question. How do you think other countries are doing it and surviving? Granted populations sizes are going to be different, but if you consider it to be funded by a certain portion of GDP, then the model should operate pretty much the same way.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@teksavvy.com wrote:

Not necessarily at all. Demographics aren't at all the same, either, as well as just numbers.
And, not all these other countries are doing so well, either; or their systems aren't all functioning as well as might be hoped. Recall GB some years ago when they went bust? Japan has been in almost 20 year stagnant at best, France is beset w/ strikes and all sorts of troubles simmering just under the surface...
And, of course, the US "plan" being proposed isn't one of those anyway, it's a hodgepodge of stuff and includes a significant fraction of the supposed cost for the new stuff to come by reducing current expenditures for Medicare which is some trillions upside down already and has difficulty getting providers to accept patients for the present remuneration what more w/ further reductions.
No, I don't see much (as in any) hope of what's being proposed having any success at all in accomplishing what's being promised it will do. I do see it creating another humongeous federal bureaucracy and and bottomless sink for revenue.
I can see some reforms/modifications of systems but these folks running the show at the moment can't seem to see anything but that it's the government's job to do everything for everybody whether they want it or not or whether there's any way to pay for it or not.
And we've not even started to see the impacts of what Cap'n Trade is going to do to destroy what little competitive position w/ have left in global marketplace if it goes. If folks think employment situation is tough now, wait'll manufacturers' input energy costs double or so while rest of worlds' don't change significantly and see how that works out.
--
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They converted you to a Socialist. Everything has a cost. That is what scares me about the proposed system, we don't know what the real cost is going to be. Yes, it would be ice to give everyone good health care, but who is going to pay how much?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski said:

In that case we've been Socialists for years: Roads and highways, police, fire departments, the military, Coast Guard, water treatment plants, NASA, the judicial circuits, schools, parks, community power consortiums... The things people need to live.
Here is an interesting set of charts for your edification:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/IFHP%20Comparative%20Price%20Report%20with%20AHA%20data%20addition.pdf
FWIW,
Greg G.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.