I read up until the following quote, attributed to an unnamed “industry observer” - something aroused my curiosity:
> "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.
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.
Meanwhile, I go to ZenniOptical, find a functional pair for $10, and buy eight copies. Never worry about glasses again. Keep a pair in the car, at work, in my luggage, and let them diffuse around the house.
Wife and I have been using Zenni for years. She loves being able to swap out glasses every year or so without breaking the bank. Also my glasses at a normal place are 800-1200 while at Zenni they are barely 120.
I did that for my reading glasses, but for shortsightedness, especially as an astigmatic, I find it hard to buy glasses or frames without actually wearing them. Curious what your strategy is.
They're cheap enough on Zenni that you can just try a pair. I have astigmatism and got lucky after a couple pairs on Zenni -- now I just reorder the same frames with a new prescription knowing I'll get something that works well.
The FTC is the weak link here. The FTC and Department of Justice divvy up their prosecution of monopolies. Firms prosecuted by the FTC always get off scot free.
> His analogy: "Imagine if in the luxury-bag industry, like Hermès and Louis Vuitton, if they were all actually the same company. That's kind of the trick here with Luxottica, is they own all the brands people think are competing brands, like Ray-Ban and Oakley, and they sort of mimic competition."
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.
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).
The one thing that has stopped me isn’t cost, but the relative risks of serious/permanent side effects. If LASIK generates an issue (dry eyes, pain, inaccurate correction) it’s basically permanent. If contacts are an issue, take them out or swap the brand/prescription. I just couldn’t gamble my vision on the outcome of LASIK.
There are the risks you mention plus 3 things that I've heard:
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.
I've been wearing glasses for 20 years (myopia and astigmatism, can't see shit without them) and these are the things that put me off, the small risks and non-permanence don't really seem worth it. If I do sports I wear daily disposable contact lenses, so glasses don't get in my way.
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.
True, 99% of people experiencing no negative side-effects does mean that 1% do experience negative side-effects.
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).
I read up until the following quote, attributed to an unnamed “industry observer” - something aroused my curiosity:
> "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.
Meanwhile, I go to ZenniOptical, find a functional pair for $10, and buy eight copies. Never worry about glasses again. Keep a pair in the car, at work, in my luggage, and let them diffuse around the house.
Wife and I have been using Zenni for years. She loves being able to swap out glasses every year or so without breaking the bank. Also my glasses at a normal place are 800-1200 while at Zenni they are barely 120.
Thankyou, this is the comment I came here for - advice on alternatives!
I did that for my reading glasses, but for shortsightedness, especially as an astigmatic, I find it hard to buy glasses or frames without actually wearing them. Curious what your strategy is.
They're cheap enough on Zenni that you can just try a pair. I have astigmatism and got lucky after a couple pairs on Zenni -- now I just reorder the same frames with a new prescription knowing I'll get something that works well.
The FTC is the weak link here. The FTC and Department of Justice divvy up their prosecution of monopolies. Firms prosecuted by the FTC always get off scot free.
"if you put a fashion label on a medical device, people will pay twenty times what it costs to make."
And, if you take that label off, they'll pay even more. It's great work.
> His analogy: "Imagine if in the luxury-bag industry, like Hermès and Louis Vuitton, if they were all actually the same company. That's kind of the trick here with Luxottica, is they own all the brands people think are competing brands, like Ray-Ban and Oakley, and they sort of mimic competition."
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVMH
> They own ... EyeBuyDirect.
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).
The one thing that has stopped me isn’t cost, but the relative risks of serious/permanent side effects. If LASIK generates an issue (dry eyes, pain, inaccurate correction) it’s basically permanent. If contacts are an issue, take them out or swap the brand/prescription. I just couldn’t gamble my vision on the outcome of LASIK.
There are the risks you mention plus 3 things that I've heard:
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.
I've been wearing glasses for 20 years (myopia and astigmatism, can't see shit without them) and these are the things that put me off, the small risks and non-permanence don't really seem worth it. If I do sports I wear daily disposable contact lenses, so glasses don't get in my way.
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.
True, 99% of people experiencing no negative side-effects does mean that 1% do experience negative side-effects.
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).
> I just couldn’t gamble my vision on the outcome of 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".