> "In essence, EyeMed is merely an instrument to protect the market share of the Luxottica family of companies, and it provides little to no substantive cost amelioration to consumers, what many would regard as the principal purpose of insurance."
Searching with Kagi, the quote comes from a post on forums.studentdoctor.net by ThazinJayne (1), who prefaces the text “Here is an e-mail I received from a friend”.
An industry observer? More like an unnamed friend of an anonymous forum member.
1: https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/luxottica-eyemed-sc...
——
P.S. I like my Oakleys, both sun- and prescription glasses, but cannot deny they are way overpriced for what they are – a little bit of plastic and metal.
I'm like that with my prescription raybans, I know it's a scam, but they fit my head the best despite being like 4x the generic ones at the same stores.
What the fuck? Is this normal in the U.S.A.?
That's ironic as the company that owns the Louis Voitton brand does actually own a bunch of other luxury brands, to name a few: Christian Dior, Givenchy, Fendi, Tiffany & Co., Bulgari, TAG Heuer, Marc Jacobs, Sephora.
People could favour other brands for lenses, like Nikon or Zeiss, but they aren’t necessarily better. Competition must stay alive!
Lenses factories are mostly in Asia, so if you go there, bring your prescription and get a pair!
It hurts to see my neighbours, a retired couple, pay thousands of dollars from their pension for glasses that should cost $20. I've tried to tell them about EssilorLuxxotica but they insist on paying more because they're getting better glasses that way.
And, if you take that label off, they'll pay even more. It's great work.
Back when I used to buy eye glasses, I bought three identical pairs from them (same frames and prescription). All three were different, and only one of them was tolerable to wear.
LASIK seems to still have an very healthy margin for the provider, but still worth it. By my calculations, LASIK cost me the same amount that contact lenses would have cost me over the same time period (and that's after searching 30+ retailers for the lowest price on contact lenses).
1) You lose any close-up vision that you have. I take off my glasses to read things like books or my phone. Hmmm. Verifying this, Google says you could ask for one eye to be set to see close and the other far https://www.eyecenteroftexas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/... says that if you don't do that than you will lose near vision.
2) There's more problems with oncoming headlights at night blurring your vision or causing halos. This may only last for 6 months to a couple of years at worst.
3) It's not permanent. At some point you'll need glasses again. https://ophthalmology.wustl.edu/does-lasik-last-forever-unde... says 10-20 years before you need to correct your vision again or a lifetime if you're lucky.
My plan is to wait until refractive lens replacement (basically the same as cataract surgery) becomes a bit more mainstream option and do that. Artificial lenses last longer than the eyes natural lenses and supposedly never need replacement - although I'm not sure how much of that data is from the typical older person who has cataract surgery.
You can test yourself to see what would happen. Wearing your nearsighted glasses, can you still read a book? You'll notice it is harder than without them. If so, then you still can after LASIK.
Perfectly reasonable. However, do know that modern versions of the procedure are way better at identifying the people who are likely to have problems.
However, even if the odds are 1 in 10,000, there is always a "1".
I think religiously-following the pre-operating and post-operation instructions is very important, and making sure eye health before the procedure is good enough.
I imagine dry eyes wouldn't be any more inconvenient than having to deal with contacts (and having worse vision without the contacts).
