Chewing gum is bad for you...  it is bad for your teeth...  you don't want your teeth to touch too much— just enough to eat...  touching too much is bad for your teeth... also, chewing gum is bad for the muscles in the jaw and the jaw joint...   (Temporomandibular Joint—  TMJ...)

 BlueHeronDruid wrote:  

 

You need to find another optometrist.  I briefly worked for one that actually viewed the patients as a mark.  He ignored their needs and history, especially with contact lenses and prescribed only what made him the most money.  Same for spectacle lenses.  The patient be damned.  I was used to being able to offer what ever was needed by the patient, having worked for a store run by a family of opticians, not doctors.  We locked horns and I pushed until I got canned.  Ruled an unjust termination, but I never want to work in that kind of an environment again.  I would rather say welcome to Wal-Mart and pass out shopping carts.

Ironically, you might get a better refraction at a chain.  Take your Rx and go to a private boutique kind of shop if possible, run by opticians.  You might pay a little more, and when you compare you might find prices less than LensCrappers.  You are also much more likely to see when you plunk down your money, provided your Rx is good to begin with.  If they have been around awhile, odds are they know what they are doing.  They survive by word of mouth and only get one shot to get it right and make a repeat customer.  They can usually get any kind of lens or material, unlike the chains and many doctors' offices.  Neatness can be misleading, it can generally mean business is slow and that can mean many things, not always good.  Organized confusion is the sign of a busy place, and they are busy because customers are happy.   Independents are driven to get things right the first time in order to save money and make happy repeat customers.  Find out where the ophthalmologists get their glasses.  I work at one of these places.  Ask if the dispenser works on commission, or if the shop is a commission shop.  Not a good place to be. 

There are two primary vision care insurance providers, VSP and Eyemed.  I find that VSP is better for the patient, because VSP supervises the fabrication of the lenses and you are much more likely to get your Rx filled as written.  Eyemed is owned by Luxottica, the largest manufacturer of frames, privately held by the DelVechio family of Italy.  They own Brooks Brothers, Oakley, Oliver Peoples and other similar designer lines, lock stock and barrel.  They own Lenscrafters and Pearle Vision and are busy buying up all the small regional chains that they can.  They are a purveyor of frames, optics come second.  Also an Eyemed provider can choose whoever they want to make the lenses, so quality is catch as catch can.  VSP was founded by a doctors' group in California and has expanded due to their success.  They are fair and easy to deal with.  Can't say the same about Eyemed, but all the above is only my opinion, I offer no medical advice as I have legal restrictions on what I can say.

 

 kurtster wrote: 


I have copied and pasted every single comment you have made on this subject onto a Notepad file...  awesome stuff, Kurt...

 oldslabsides wrote: 
No, there are a couple other options in town and in Hadlock. No need to head to Sequim just yet.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
and he's prolly the only eye doc in Pete, right?  might have to drive over to Squem.

Kurt, thanks for the primer.

I opted for progressives because I was tired of taking my bifocals off and putting on my "computer" glasses every time I sat down here.

What I wasn't told was that I'd have visual accuracy for only about an inch horizontally. I'm used to these lenses enough now that I no longer feel like I'm putting my life in danger every time I look over my shoulder to pull out from a side street, though, which I guess is good.

Reading? These positively blow for reading. I probably look like Katharine Hepburn in her later days when I'm just trying to relax with a freakin' book!

Then again, the optometrist seems to hate me. First time I went to him, although I argued vigorously against mono vision contacts, guess what. He decided to order them for me anyway. And the language he uses during the exams suggests that we're in an adversarial relationship. How I miss our optometrist in IL.

There are over 150 different versions of progressive lenses available and and about 5 levels of optics.  Only about 10% of the population cannot adapt to them.  These lenses are the most custom type available requiring skilled measurement and choice of frames to end up with something that works properly.  The highest level of optics involved in progressive lenses involves computer guided CNC lasers cutting on both the front and the back of the lens.  These lenses would retail for about $700 plus a frame, but you get everything you pay for.  You can look around easily and see what you are looking at, without staring directly at an object.  Most progressives require you to look directly at whatever you are trying to see.  Peripheral vision is very limited.  That's just the way it is.

While you can glance at an object at the side of you, I challenge anyone to hold a book to the side and try and read it without glasses if your vision allows you to read without glasses.  So many people expect glasses to do the impossible., everything.  Basic progressive lenses in regular plastic can be had for around $150.  They will allow you to see most everything, however you will have to look harder and more directly at what you are trying to see.  There are many other factors involved as to why they work better for some than others.  Astigmatism has the next most influence on the outcome.  The stronger your astigmatism, the greater teh need for these high end progressives.  Success also requires picking the right lens for the person when specific visual needs such as how much reading you do versus how much arms length stuff you do. 

The biggest mistakes I see are in the Rx where many refractionist, especially tech's generally found in ophthamologists offices, just give the patient an abrotrary reading add, based upon age.   WWWWRRROOONNGGGG !!!.  Too much, brings it up close to tyour nose, too little will put it out at the end of your arms's reach.  That's why it is most important for the patient to tell the refractionist at what distance they usually hold their reading material.  Some people do read from their laps and some hold the book an inch from their nose.  Bring your own reading material and show the refractionist just where you hold your reading material.  And make them try out your new Rx in that exact situation.  They may think you are nuts, but they can simulate the situation so you can try it out and prevent errors from happenning.

A certain power lets you see at a certain length, that is what its all about.  20/20 refers to the measurement of how well you see a certain sized object at 20 feet.  20/15 means that a person can see at 20 feet what someone with 20/20 vision must move to 15 feet to see just as well the person with a  20/15 visual acuity. 

Lenses would cost a lot less, if the people doing the refraction did a better job.  Costs for Rx errors are built in to lens costs.  That is how you get a Rx change on the house.  However, we, the ones who make them often get screwed in that deal.  More on that at another time.  

 katzendogs wrote: 
Sorry, hon. These are the 1997 models. Got 'em when I was 40.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
Try the 2000 models!

 kurtster wrote: 
Ouch!

 kurtster wrote:  I'll agree with this statement. I have it, but will most likely terminate it when renewal comes up. I have had cataract (11/09and 12/09) surgery on both eyes and it is a wonderful improvement. My only regret is I opted for reading (nearsighted) lenses. Opposite of what I was before the surgery. I wasn't about to change mid- surgery though.
The Ma in law just had her first eye done. 80 years of age. All is well.
I think most will need some type of eye glasses. No big deal.

 kurtster wrote: 
My husband pays about $800 every 3-4 years for his glasses and eye exam.  Throw in an extra $100 for sunglasses.  That's less than $300/year... Eye insurance would probably be more than that.

 triskele wrote: 
I'm used to them. And I still hate them. What's the point of having these big goofy glasses if I can only see out of an hour-glass shaped portion of the freakin' lenses!

 BlueHeronDruid wrote: 
it took me no less than 6 months to get used to mine....

 hippiechick wrote: 
I loathe mine.

 hippiechick wrote: 
why am i not surprised

im guessin thats for your left eye.

 kurtster wrote: 
I need progressive lenses

OBTW:  Walmart is back to selling Rx single vision glasses for $38.00, at least here in the Cleveland Metro area.  Can't beat that with a big stick.  Granted the frames are pretty basic, but that is a damn good price.

 hippiechick wrote: 
I have found that in most cases, the cost of average eyeglass insurance seems to net out to the same as if you just paid cash for your glasses.  It sure looks pretty on paper, but in reality many people pay more than they get back when they get their glasses.  This is my experience and observations over many years.  I have helped patients do the analysis and many are surprised.  Usually the only ones who benefit with eyeglass insurance are those with several children.

And the other thing is that usually only very basic frames are covered, if you want nicer ones you gotta pay out of pocket for the difference.  I get very anoyed by the people who think that eyeglass insurance equates with fashion insurance.  Eyeglass insurance is largely a joke, unless your employer pays for all of it.

 jagdriver wrote: 
Ahhhh, the good ol days!