How Badly Are We Being Ripped Off On Eyewear? Former Industry Execs Tell All (latimes.com) 440
LA Times reports: Charles Dahan knows from firsthand experience how badly people get ripped off when buying eyeglasses. He was once one of the leading suppliers of frames to LensCrafters, before the company was purchased by optical behemoth Luxottica. He also built machines that improved the lens-manufacturing process. In other words, Dahan, 70, knows the eyewear business from start to finish. And he doesn't like what's happened. "There is no competition in the industry, not anymore," he told me. "Luxottica bought everyone. They set whatever prices they please."
Both Butler and Dahan (former executives with LensCrafters) acknowledged what most consumers have long suspected: that the prices we pay for eyewear in no way reflect the actual cost of making frames and lenses. When he was in the business, in the 1980s and '90s, Dahan said it cost him between $10 and $16 to manufacture a pair of quality plastic or metal frames. Lenses, he said, might cost about $5 a pair to produce. With fancy coatings, that could boost the price all the way to $15.
He said LensCrafters would turn around and charge $99 for completed glasses that cost $20 or $30 to make -- and this was well below what many independent opticians charged. Nowadays, he said, those same glasses at LensCrafters might cost hundreds of dollars. Butler said he recently visited factories in China where many glasses for the U.S. market are manufactured. Improved technology has made prices even lower than what Dahan recalled. "You can get amazingly good frames, with a Warby Parker level of quality, for $4 to $8," Butler said. "For $15, you can get designer-quality frames, like what you'd get from Prada."
Both Butler and Dahan (former executives with LensCrafters) acknowledged what most consumers have long suspected: that the prices we pay for eyewear in no way reflect the actual cost of making frames and lenses. When he was in the business, in the 1980s and '90s, Dahan said it cost him between $10 and $16 to manufacture a pair of quality plastic or metal frames. Lenses, he said, might cost about $5 a pair to produce. With fancy coatings, that could boost the price all the way to $15.
He said LensCrafters would turn around and charge $99 for completed glasses that cost $20 or $30 to make -- and this was well below what many independent opticians charged. Nowadays, he said, those same glasses at LensCrafters might cost hundreds of dollars. Butler said he recently visited factories in China where many glasses for the U.S. market are manufactured. Improved technology has made prices even lower than what Dahan recalled. "You can get amazingly good frames, with a Warby Parker level of quality, for $4 to $8," Butler said. "For $15, you can get designer-quality frames, like what you'd get from Prada."
Considering the fact that (Score:4, Funny)
LASIK is down to about $200 per eye, if you can afford a pair of glasses, you could probably afford to never buy them again.
The last time I got new astigmatic contacts, I discovered their focal length was further out than my arms could hold something I was trying to read. The brilliant solution of my optometrist was to try to sell me reading glasses...
Re:Considering the fact that (Score:5, Insightful)
Price gouging by an eyewear monopolist? (Score:2, Funny)
I did not see that coming.
Re:Considering the fact that (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Considering the fact that (Score:5, Informative)
Another risk in laser eye surgery is extreme dryness. My eyes are already on the dry side - damned if I'm going to gamble on having to depend on drops for the rest of my life, in addition to the posibility of poor night vision, or worse if the procedure goes sideways.
I can't even wear contacts - even when I ignore the irritation, all the ones I've tried cause my eyes to get gummy and blurry. I've resigned myself to wearing glasses, (and getting hosed because of it), for the rest of my life.
Re: (Score:2)
The rate of complications for Lasik is extremely low, like less than 1% if you are using a "surgeon" with more than 15K procedures under their belt. But when the complications do happen they are often quite severe, up to and including blindness.
People should weight those risks, including getting a consultation to see what your personal risk of complications are. Various parameters, like the thickness of your retina and lens, can greatly modify those complication rates. To simply write off the procedure with
Re: (Score:3)
1% is not low.
If it is counted per eye, it would mean one of 50 people has one eye treated badly. If it is per person than obviously one out of 100 ...
No idea why people think %1 is a low risk ... it is not. 1% might be a low number if we talk about inflation or interest.
You have to walk a 100 yard way, on one yard is a mine: would you walk it?
Re: (Score:2)
Another risk in laser eye surgery is extreme dryness. My eyes are already on the dry side - damned if I'm going to gamble on having to depend on drops for the rest of my life, in addition to the possibility of poor night vision, or worse if the procedure goes sideways.
I can't even wear contacts - even when I ignore the irritation, all the ones I've tried cause my eyes to get gummy and blurry. I've resigned myself to wearing glasses, (and getting hosed because of it), for the rest of my life.
My wife had dry-eye due to poor tear production and she also couldn't wear contacts for any length of time (but could when she was younger). She got daily disposable contacts to wear on special occasions. The ophthalmic surgeon (head of Ophthalmic Surgery at EVMS) she saw about getting PRK [wikipedia.org] (he only did PRK and said he spent half his time fixing LASIK complications done by others) said she wasn't a good candidate for laser-eye surgery because of her dry eye and poor tear production (he even tested her by pu
Re:Considering the fact that (Score:5, Insightful)
All I can say, is that without any hyperbole at all, the decision to get laser eye surgery was the best money I have ever spent in my life. You have no idea the freedom and "HD" vision that comes as a result. The slight inconveniences are way more than worth it. I just can't tell you enough how awesome it has been - do not discount it.
If you're interested, what finally made me look and take the dive was the fact I started skiing a lot, and the glasses fogging up under my goggles was highly annoying. I likewise could not use contacts for various reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had LASIK done about 16 years ago. No problems. The pattern that the laser made on my corneas resulted in my eyes becoming DIFFRACTION GRATINGS when looking at bright, point-light sources like LEDs. For normal viewing everything was normal.
Green and red LEDs are pure. Yellow LEDs are a blend of several colors. -- This from looking a LED stop-lights at night. :^)
After a few years, it went away. :^/
Re: (Score:3)
You could look into lens implantation. I had the Visian ICL one done and it is amazing.
It is more expensive than any of the laser surgeries, but it is reversible and there is a significantly lower chance of complications (no dryness issues etc.).
The only actual 'complication' is seeing ringlike lens flares from the edges of the 'aquaport' (a little hole in the center of the lens), which I'm told your brain adjusts to over a longer period of time (I'm 2.5 months in). They're not problematic in any way alread
Lasic doesn't do far sight? (Score:2)
Last time I looked lasic didn't handle farsight.
Re:Considering the fact that (Score:4, Insightful)
LASIK is down to about $200 per eye
Citation needed, I keep checking prices and the bargain basement back alley LASIK is still $1k.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Considering the fact that (Score:2, Informative)
$200 lasik myth [berkeleyeye.com]
Re:Considering the fact that (Score:4, Informative)
I'll be sure to avoid anything Luxottica.
The problem is that practically nothing in the Luxottica empire is named Luxottica. They bought up numerous US eyeglass retailers, but kept the original names. They own a big vision insurance company, but not with their name. They own numerous "brands" of actual eyeglasses, but practically none with their own name.
Unless you read the articles carefully and note all of the names for the vision plan(s), eyeglass "brands", and eyeglass stores that together give the illusion of competition but in reality are all one giant singular entity, you won't see the forest for the trees.
As far as LASIK goes, I had it done about 18 years ago for something like $1800 per eye. Economically, it's been a big win, and practically it has been a big win as well. I was nearsighted enough to need glasses for everything but reading, and I enjoyed many years being eyeglass free. Once I got into my upper 40s and presbyopia set in I began to need reading glasses (first in low light, then generally). My optometrist tells me that would have happened anyway. When I had my LASIK procedure done, I hedged my bets and paid big $$$ to have a very experienced doctor perform the surgery (he was well-known for doing the eyes of some sports figures, including Tiger Woods). Even so, during the recovery period I kept asking myself what the flock I was thinking... fortunately it all worked out ok.
Re: (Score:3)
Italy's Luxottica [...] "That's how they gained control of so many brands" Dahan said. "If you don't do what they want, they cut you off"
Dat's a nice eyeglass store youse got dere. Be a shame if your arms was to be cut off from your torso. I'm sure Guido and Luigi can work out an offer you can't refuse...
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had, or investigated, Lasik, but I've heard this place mentioned often:
https://www.lasikmd.com/price-... [lasikmd.com]
I have no clue what "Starting at $490/eye" means though, and how quickly the cost jumps.
CAD pricing, so still above $200 per eye as mentioned above, but not a ridiculous amount, I guess, when you're discussing eye surgery.
Re: (Score:3)
Vision can change over time – that still is true after LASIK. Even if nothing went wrong, it can happen easily that two or three years later your eyes have changed again and you'll need glasses again even though you had them lasered.
Re: (Score:2)
If you prescription changes every year or two, you are not a great candidate for LASIK.
I got mine done about 20 years ago. Vision is still good enough to drive without glasses.
it's all about money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I got new astigmatic contacts, I discovered their focal length was further out than my arms could hold something I was trying to read
Welcome to getting older. I'm almost up to three separate prescriptions depending on what I'm doing.
Re: (Score:2)
I know people who've had lasik performed... Now their sight is "better" but they can't tolerate "bright" lighting and need to be in dimmer environments. No thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Considering the fact that (Score:4, Informative)
No, lasik burns off parts of your lens, at the front of the eye, in order to reshape it so that it properly focuses light on the back of the eye - the retina.
If it were burning off the back of the eye it would simply make you blind.
It's the fitting that I pay for (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with this I will point out that depending on your vision the service you get in getting the glasses rightly fitted is the hard part that may be worth paying for. FOr simple single vision lenses that's only weakly important. But for bifocals and even more critically progressives, the fitting is everything. I usually have to get two and sometimes 3 sets of glasses made before I'm happy. I've done tests where I have my vision measures four times in a row. They never agree. But some optics shops have a little leeway on progressives to tilt the degree of maginification in the center one way or the other. And that really helps when they get it right. It sucks when they don't.
So I don't mind paying for the service even though I know the glasses are not worth the price in materials.
Re:It's the fitting that I pay for (Score:4, Informative)
Why would they? (Score:5, Informative)
TFS says:
Absent people who took no or a single econ class, why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay? Hell, Apple/Google get 30% of all app payments for credit card processing and hosting a static website. Corporate profits in general are at record highs.
And Luxottica is particularly horrible. They bought Oakley by refusing to stock them (they own LensCrafters, Pearl Vision, Sunglass Hut, Walmart Optical, Target Optical, and more). Then, when the stock cratered, they bought the company, started stocking it, and raked in the bucks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why would they? (Score:5, Informative)
The entire justification of market economies hinges on the central premise that competition drives the retail price towards the marginal cost of production. If that is untrue, the market has failed and intervention is necessary if the economy is to remain market based.
I think they understand that just fine.
Re:Why would they? (Score:5, Insightful)
For commodities.
If you look, you can find no name glasses at commodite price.
Re: (Score:3)
For commodities.
If you look, you can find no name glasses at commodite price.
The problem is the "medical device" and "prescription" lables associated with glasses. For absolutely no reason at all, people have to see a doctor to get a prescription every few years, and this makes it feel like you need to buy this specialty vision device at the doctor's office. Very few optometrists will just hand you a paper with your prescription on it and suggest a few inexpensive options for buying glasses. They all push their stock very heavily because the margins are obscene.
Of course you can
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.zennioptical.com/ [zennioptical.com]
$50 is their top of the line stuff. I get the $15 glasses that the doctor tried to sell me for $400. I've bought enough pairs that I spread them around the house and in my car so that I don't have to look for them.
Re:Why would they? (Score:4, Informative)
I've been buying from Zenni for about 5 years. Many pairs of glasses. Some of them are sort of cheap and others were really nice. But at those prices, who cares? I buy multiple pairs just to have variety and some fashion and I still save hundreds of dollars. And I've never had an optical formula problem with any of them, around 20 pairs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Alternately, just ask the eye doctor for your prescription. You don't have to explain yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
The roadblock is insurance and laziness.
You go to the eye doctor (paid for by the insurance). Many people won't even know what the real charges are. You're examined, then ushered out to the eye glass sales side of the business. The doctor uses her air of authority to make it seem that buying the glasses there is the right thing to do...and besides, the insurance says you get one pair per year. You shop for style instead of price.
What woke me up to this dynamic? Being our of insurance and having to pay m
Re:Why would they? (Score:4, Insightful)
why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay?
Wrong question. Why would anyone assume that if something was being sold with a very large profit margin there would not be new entrants to the market undercutting the incumbents?
In many places you can buy glasses at much closer to the cost price, often online but sometimes in shops as well. Personally I like JINS. I find them more comfortable than designer frames and the last pair I bought was $30 (admittedly on sale but I think only $50 normally).
Re: (Score:3)
First of all: the web sites are not static. They include rating of apps etc. and you are usually logged in.
Secondly: Apple does not only host the apps and reviews and processes credit cards, they analyze every app for security risks etc. I doubt they earn more than 15% (half of the 30% they charge).
Re: (Score:3)
why would anyone assume there is a relationship between cost to produce something and the cost we have to pay?
Because there is.
I'm curious about if the prices above are gross or net costs. Basically, what's the profit margin?
Luxottica's net profit margin is about 15.8%, meaning that for every $1 of revenue they keep about 16 cents of profit. This is similar to Apple, Microsoft, and Google (20%-22%), and dissimilar from Comcast (11%-13%, depending on year), Adidas (8%), and Walmart (3%). Large pharmaceutical companies pull fluctuating profits generally holding around 12% for a 5-year average.
I generally des
Re:Why would they? (Score:5, Insightful)
If medical equipment traded competitively, prices would be "just." The problem is that the medical market is a cartelized system that refuses to even let us know what the price of anything is.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't think anybody shops for corrective eyeglasses based solely on brand (sunglasses, maybe). You buy them for how they look on your face, since it becomes part of your face all the time.
I think Warby Parker has been a great example of this. They've milked every vintage look/trend created elsewhere for their glasses and they're dirt cheap. They've succeeded because they've mastered both of these things.
The best eyewear supplier I've found. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you don't need:
(1) Variable-focus lenses
(2) Any sort of scratch-resistant coating
or
(3) High-index lenses
Because then the price goes up a LOT more...
(for the record, I use them, but their glasses are nowhere near 99$)
most of the us health care system is an ripoff. (Score:5, Insightful)
most of the us health care system is an ripoff.
With
hidden fees
networks that are hard to stay 100% in.
any out of network person can drive by and bill you 100K with no control over stopping them.
each person can bill on there own.
if an place miss bills then you can be on the hook for the full rate
there are like 3-4 different rates for the same thing.
the mark up makes the apple app store look good
Re: (Score:2)
Re:most of the us health care system is an ripoff. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite. We just need one insurer that pays for everything. They can have two or three policies with defined levels of care with limits on the ability to move between plans. Everyone picks one. Everyone pays the premium to cover the costs for that plan (parents pay for kids to age 18). Roll up all the various insurance and government medical programs into this one insurer. Pick an unannounced date to price the stock on all private companies at one time and buy them out (or the fraction of their business that is medical out) and transfer the backing assets to the single insurer. Transfer the assets on account at the government (state and federal) and unions and corporations and everything else health related into that one insurer. Then each year adjust the premiums based on the costs seen and projected for the next year to keep the program 100% solvent. Add limits on tort actions. Make that insurer the only payer so every medical doctor or facility will know exactly what will be paid out for anyone based on which of the two or three policy levels they have selected. No in or out of network - every facility and doctor is by definition in network. Make the pharmacies use the same insurer for payment. Adjust reimbursed costs based on cost of living by location and adjust reimbursements paid from then on based on cost of living changes at each location. There would be some quirks to be worked out, but just go to single payer that covers everybody from birth to death and adjust premiums as needed and call it good. Let capitalism then work out how many MRI machines every local doctor really needs access to and the like. People are covered wherever they are in the country. Temporary visitors to the country could be charged a fee for accident type injuries during their stay here. Full time non-citizens living here could pick a plan just like anybody else. Big disruption in "the way we do things". Yes. But what we have now isn't working and isn't sustainable. Everyone actually "needs" good coverage regardless of age. When you are young, orthodontics are pricey. Glasses are pricey. Broken bones are always pricey. Pregnancy is pricey. Cover everybody. Adjust the tiers till things are workable - no reason to pay for pregnancy premiums when you aren't female or are but aren't in the childbearing years for example. Adjust a long term care rider based on your age. But other than a few things like that, keep the differences between the policies limited (think adding a pregnancy rider for example to a basic level of care policy). Simpler for everybody. You could even adjust the payouts based on the doctors and facilities overall success rate on the procedure to give experience a boost. Lots of possibilities, but it all starts with getting rid of the patchwork of insurance companies, massively overlapping facilities and equipment, and all of the in and out of network garbage there is.
Re: (Score:3)
They also lie they cannot update the lenses in your current $400 frames even though the machines can run the inside of the frame for sizing.
Invisible hand of the market hard at work... (Score:3)
There's a joke about that in there somewhere... just can't put my finger on it right now.
Might be I finally need glasses...
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the U.S. the invisible hand is in traction from so many megacorps whacking it with a mallet.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, both the GOP and Libertarian party are opposed to reigning in corporations, much less abolishing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a joke about that in there somewhere... just can't put my finger on it right now.
Might be I finally need glasses...
Here you go!
A place to get cheap glasses [eyebuydirect.com]
coupons to make them even cheaper [retailmenot.com]
Oops, looks like the invisible hand is working after all!
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, they don't make glasses that could help you.
Reading comprehension is not an optical issue.
Nor is a sense of humor.
Hah! (Score:2)
My last pair cost upwards of 800 bucks!
The prices touted as phenomenally expensive seem like a bargain to me.
Here's the competition... (Score:3)
Cohen's Optical exists in NY and surrounding area -- they do exam + glasses for $100 and have a decent range of frames for that price.
It's even cheaper to order directly from China, and I doubt that US Customs really gives a fuck about ordering Rx glasses without a prescription when they have bigger fish to fry...
https://hackernoon.com/how-to-... [hackernoon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
7$ vs 300$ sunglasses (Score:3)
There was a consumer test program done by our national television station, they tested various sunglasses and what got you the most for your money.
Interestingly enough, some of the fashion brands where actually protecting you less against the dangerous UV rays from the sun, than the 7$ dollar ones they got at our version of the dollar stores. So in fact, in this case - you where better off buying the off-brand rather than the mainstream fashion brands.
Kind of reminds of a certain PC vs Another brand war that still today is on-going, you purchase a lifestyle, the product, well ...comes second.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a test you can run yourself on a pair you buy to check a cheap pair of sunglasses? Maybe with a full-spectrum light source (or sunlight + IR + UV LEDs) and a few sensors?
Re: (Score:2)
Only buy polarized sunglasses, they cut glare much better. You can use the pair you are carrying to test the ones you are considering.
Yes, some of the super cheap ones are labeled 'polarized' and aren't.
If they spent the money on the polarized layer, they won't have cut the UV layer corner.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you've outlined the important pieces that would go into such a test, then yes, I'm pretty sure you could run the exact test that you've theorized.
Re: (Score:2)
https://philadelphia.cbslocal.... [cbslocal.com]
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) â" Paylessâ(TM) recent marketing campaign tricked fashion influencers into paying significantly more for a pair of affordable shoes. The retailer created a new store, called Palessi, as an experiment t
Re: (Score:2)
My problem is that there are no cheap sunglasses that fit my head. I have a gigantic noggin, and the only sunglasses I've found which really fit are Oakley M-frames, specifically in the XL size. I used to be able to buy knockoff frames at the flea market, and then fill them with quality replacement lenses sourced online, but Luxotica has spent a bunch of money attacking counterfeiters, so now I can't find the counterfeits any more. I still see other styles at flea markets, but not M2s, and never M2 XLs. I c
The invisible hand of capitalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The invisible hand of capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
Except the invisible hand already created Zenni, and I got my glasses from them for like $60.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But there capitalism means you can buy a pair in unusual size at all, my family and friends from communist regimes (Khmer, Russian, China) had to stand in line for things that didn't fit
Re: (Score:2)
Buy online, not in store (Score:5, Insightful)
With places like Zenni Optical (http://zennioptical.com) available, where a complete set of glasses with all kinds of coatings and options and extras comes out to under $50 US, why are people still buying at their optometrist's office?
There's several different places like Zenni online. Even with shipping and currency conversion, it's a lot less expensive to buy online than any eye wear places here in Canada.
And the quality is quite good, comparable to $200+ US frames and lenses. Even if the quality isn't as good as the uber-expensive ones, you can always just buy 2 or 3 pairs each year and still come out ahead. :D
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably because of what you have to go through [youtube.com] to get that $50 in their currency.
zennioptical.com (Score:4, Insightful)
The prices in the summary are why some of our family have started using https://www.zennioptical.com/ [zennioptical.com] (no connection except as customer). One family member got very basic lenses & frames for $9 if memory serves (could be off but it wasn't even $40 with shipping), Mine were more but had more features. It was worth getting the account and submitting photos to "try on" glasses, but one order I placed would have been better if I had paid attention to the posted length of the temple and actual frame & lens dimensions: next one I did better and it is good now.
(My one complaint is that their customer service gave info that was overconfident -- they didn't really know. And their site EULA had terms I didn't like, and nobody was willing to discuss it, either at the posted contact info or the customer service. But the site FAQs etc were helpful for other things, and I was able to adjust frames myself, etc.)
Re: (Score:3)
Take a ruler and look in a mirror. Or get your SO to measure it.
Amazon sells little plastic tools that are basically a specialized ruler for this measurement for around $12.
Even wellfare developed countries suffer (Score:2)
I live in a country where the state subsidises pretty much every health issue. Except glass lenses and frames. You go and make a health insurance around here and guess what it doesn't include in all but the top-of-the-line plan: everything eye prosthetic-related. It is literally cheaper here to perform corrective eye surgery than to buy 2 or 3 pairs of glasses (if you do it through public health and wait around 8-20 months).
And it's getting worse. 3 years ago I paid 35 bucks for top of the line Zeiss lenses
LOL! (Score:2)
Here in Europe and as soon as glasses varifocals, we're talking about four-digit EUR figures for ones with good lenses...
And? (Score:2)
First of all, you can get glasses from (say) EyeBuyDirect for around $15-$20 on a good day, for normal single vision lenses. (Search for coupons first.)
Secondly, it's like any other product. There will be a range of prices, depending on all sorts of factors from designer names, to service, to whatever. ALL of which will above the cost of manufacture, since these are businesses and not charities.
BOM != Cost to produce (Score:2)
To begin with, this doesn't mean that Luxottica isn't doing bad things. It's just this bullshit line of reasoning makes me a bit crazy.
Cost to produce something and get it into the hands of consumers does not equal the Bill Of Materials (BOM) cost. There are a lot of other people involved in the supply chain that - shockingly enough - don't want to work for free. This includes:
1) The designers and engineers that create the product.
2) The manufacturers that pay everyone from the people actually making the pr
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases, BOM is maybe 10%-15% of the price you pay
Ok, so it costs $4-$8 to make according to TFS, which means the glasses should cost $40-$80 according to your formula.....and they charge >$200.
Wanna try to justify the monopoly rent again?
Getting LASIK next week. (Score:2)
Enough glasses for me. Employer covering it, too.
Zap zap. Bionic upgrade time.
And? (Score:2)
I did what any sane person would.
I shopped around the outlets, tried on the frames and chose one.
I then went online and ordered it from overseas. You just enter in the numbers on your prescription and choose the frames.
I got the frame I wanted for half the price it would have cost locally. The lenses only cost $10 with anti-reflective coating and I got another spare set on cheap frames for another $10.
Lasik has a lot of side effects (Score:4, Informative)
People are posting that Lasik only rarely had adverse effects. Actually the rate of complications is very high. Below are a couple of excerpts from a recent NYTimes article:
"A recent clinical trial by the F.D.A. suggests that the complications experienced by Mr. Ramirez are not uncommon.
Nearly half of all people who had healthy eyes before Lasik developed visual aberrations for the first time after the procedure, the trial found. Nearly one-third developed dry eyes, a complication that can cause serious discomfort, for the first time."
and
"Yet few studies have followed patients for more than a few months or a year, and many are authored by surgeons with financial ties to manufacturers that make the lasers.
One such study, written by the global medical director for a large laser eye-surgery provider, reported high satisfaction rates among patients five years after Lasik.
But the study also found that even after all those years, nearly half had dry eyes at least some of the time. Twenty percent had painful or sore eyes, 40 percent were sensitive to light, and one-third had difficulty driving at night or doing work that required seeing well up close."
I was thinking about Lasik until I read this. No thanks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]
Re:Cheap (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Two ways to do it:
(1) Develop a pain in your eye, have insurance pay for it as incidental to an optician's appointment.
(2) Get a coupon for somewhere like Cohen's (in NYC) that does it for $20. If the coupon is only valid once, you can keep coming back and paying cash -- not like they check ID...
Re: (Score:2)
And that is exactly why I don't go to the eye doctor as often as I should. The last time I went to the eye doctor (full exam) and got myself two new pair of matching glasses (primary / backup) ... I didn't walk out the door for under $1,000. That was a decade ago.
The only reason I went then was because at 40 something my eyes finally "froze" -- I couldn't focus on small print anymore. Expected and normal. Prior to that it was probably another decade (or two) since I'd been.
What a sham.
Re: (Score:2)
60 bucks for a good eye exam is totally worth it and reasonable given all the costs associated with running an optometry office. You're actually taking up the time of employees. We're talking the cost of one at-release AAA video game. A lot of teens these days have tatoos they spent ten times as much on.
(BTW WRT TFA, getting curved wraparound prescription lenses is even more expensive. Even so I'm surprised more people don't because why the heck would you want frames or the edge of a lens in the way of
Re: (Score:2)
At this stage I need glasses for everyday wear and a second pair just for the computer. I had my optometrist give me a second prescription measured at about 30 inches - roughly the distance from where I sit to my monitor. Zenni provided the computer glasses and they are very bit as good as the overpriced ones in the lens shop. I think I paid about $35 at Zenni vs. about $150 at the lens shop.
From now on I'm taking the prescription with me and shopping online for glasses. The prices are at least 2-3 times ch
Re:Zenni (Score:5, Insightful)
Not affiliated, but I can get my lenses and frames from Zenni for about $30 a piece and I have terrible eyesight.
Same with me. I buy my glasses from zennioptical.com [zennioptical.com] for $19.95.
If you are paying $99.95 at LensCrafters, it is not because of some vast capitalist conspiracy. It is because you are an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are paying $99.95 at LensCrafters, it is not because of some vast capitalist conspiracy. It is because you are an idiot.
You'd have to be, since they don't sell them that cheap and it implies you shopped at the swap meet.
Re: (Score:2)
zenni's the bomb alright. i buy a pair or two each year. between $65-120 per. not what you pay, but cheaper by far than the oligarchs. nevertheless, if e. dean butler's correct and the chinese wholesale $2.50 lenses and $10 frames i'm still getting totally hosed.
- js.
Lenscrafter no longer does on-site glasses (Score:3)
There's no longer a lab in your local Lenscrafters - so "about an hour" is now "within 2 weeks". Actual turn-around is about 3 business days.
So Zenni's delay doesn't seem so bad anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
So your solution is to rip off EVERYONE so that some people can get eye-wear at no cost.
Once the government starts providing it, we'll get a repeat of what's happened with the education system - once the government starts dumping money into it the price will go up. So now instead of $120 out of my pocket for glasses, it will be $4,000 out of the collective pocket, but at least "I won't have to pay for it".
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with a few million in capital should be able to enter this market and make a killing.
Maybe there are some other factors involved, like our health care system out of whack with billions spent on who-knows-what while people needing basic care can't get any unless they spend what is equivalent to a mortgage payment. Seems like someone would provide something basic at a fraction of the cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with a few million in capital should be able to enter this market and make a killing
Who's going to supply them and who's going to retail them? With the threat of Luxotica cutting that supplier/retailer off?
That's how Luxotica bought Oakley - they cut off their retailers and then bought up the company when the stock tanked.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any sympathy for the eyeglasses industry, but it's pretty easy to overlook that the gap between a product's production price and the price you pay includes a ton of expenses for which the sale of the product is meant to cover, and not just executive compensation. You can't run a retail operation like Lenscrafters, especially considering it includes a bunch of heavily regulated "medical" stuff on a 10% markup.
Re: (Score:2)
If the market is bearing that price, then that's a signal that society thinks eyeware is worth it.
Or it's being distorted by the state doing things like requiring people to have glasses to drive, then making >95% of the country require driving to live in.
Less stupid-libertarian, vision isn't exactly something people can just do without, which distorts market incentives. Further distorting the market is vision insurance programs that effectively disguise the price for the frames from the consumer.
Of course, if you think that price is too high, then that means there's a business opportunity—the market is telling you that society needs to enhance the supply of eyeware.
Only if you live in textbook land.
Out in the real world, monopolies defend their monopoly. So your new e
Re: (Score:2)
Please, tell me how to cure my astigmatism naturally.
Is there a natural way to reshape my cornea?