On Nov 10, 1:00 pm, email@example.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. ;-)
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
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.