4 ms·

I don’t get the point of this article. Essilor Luxxotica is a monopoly and they pretty much control the eye glass frames market. This is rather old news. https

I don’t get the point of this article. Essilor Luxxotica is a monopoly and they pretty much control the eye glass frames market. This is rather old news. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/6/18253555/eyeglasses-cost-lenscrafters-essilor-luxottica https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/6/18253555/eyeglasses-c... [..] Essilor is a French optical company that’s been around since the 1800s but has spent the past 20 years acquiring some 250 companies. In 2017, Essilor bought Luxottica for about $24 billion. Although it got approval by regulators in the US and the EU, and even passed an antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, business experts have called the merged EssilorLuxottica a monopoly.[..] Also: how does one be ‘in charge’ of their own exams. Walking around and operating with impaired vision is a danger to public safety. Is this a joke article?

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
Essilor Luxxotica is a separate scam that explains why you pay so much for frames in most mainstream retailers, regardless of which brand of shop you go to. > Walking around and operating with impaired vision is a danger to public safety. Surely this is an argument for making it easier to get glasses? Better a slightly wonky/old prescription for glasses than none at all.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Of course, that’s true. They are two different issues. Its expensive because it’s a cartel system. That it’s mandatory to test before issuing new prescription grade eye glasses is sensible. Eye exams ought to be cheaper, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be mandatory to get an eye exam before filling a new order. Isn’t it a business liability to hand out glasses that’s supposed to make someone see better but without necessary preliminary testing? Imagine if they did it with pharmaceuticals.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    Eye exams ought to be free, not just cheaper. Here in Australia, eye exams are free. Applying a cost to eye checks results in people being dissuaded from regular checkups and results in both more serious eye problems and possible road accidents. This is all part of our universal healthcare system -- and is something the US should really adopt (though, Sanders' proposed Medicare-for-All is actually even better than what we have here).
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      We don’t have anything free in the United States. There are many things different. For example, we take in more refugees and give sanctuary to immigrants who jumped the border. We also pay for eye exams. That’s just one example about how countries are different. I tire of country comparisons with Scandinavia or australia or India or China or Japan..or Mars. We are who we are..we can only work within the parameters we have and strive to be the best within it. I don’t even know who your incumbents are ..what qualifies you to speak of Sanders or Trump or Warren or our politicians. You are not here. Instead of demanding free everything, it would make more sense to incentivize health. ETA: I have often wondered why people want ‘free’ stuff? What is it that they offer for ‘free’ just like they receive for ‘free’? Do they work without pay? Create things for free? Code for free? Every free act of labour or service is charity or volunteerism. Even at subsidized level, this is true. An economy doesn’t work that way. A society doesn’t work that way. It would cause greater imbalances. Imbalances are entirely different and more difficult to remedy than inequalities. If anything ‘free’ will come disguised as a perk. From corporations than governments. Example: buy our video game and get free eye exams for three years. Amazon Prime does that. Become a prime member and get prime videos free or amazon music for free. And you have an opp to buy more when you are in..shipping isn’t free, but it’s kinda free, no?...one still pays for amazon prime. I would rather have a for profit corporation make a deal with me for services(goods are over consumed with our increasing global population leading to resource crunch and unsustainability) and get freebies than feed Big Gov to become a giant nanny state. That would be the beginning of the end, IMO.
Fezzik 7y ago
I don’t know if an analogy would help, but I thought the point the article was trying to make was sort of like distinguishing between a dude selling shoes at Foot Locker and a podiatrist - most people just need someone with a basic knowledge of shoes to get appropriate-enough footwear, while a small percentage of people with foot issues may need a podiatrist to do so, so how stupid would it be if we made everyone who wanted shoes go to a podiatrist to get shoes? It would be very stupid, and an excessive and unnecessary barrier to entry in to the wearing-shoes group. The same goes for glasses. The fact that we make everyone see a doctor that is formally trained to diagnose actual diseases and deformities of the eye just to get a pair of glasses is absurd. Almost anyone could be trained in a single day to prescribe glasses - calculating the needed power of lenses is a solved and mostly mechanical process. Sure, it would be great if everyone saw an expert in every field before making any purchasing decisions, but given that it is substantially more costly, cumbersome, and clearly unnecessary, why should we force people to do it?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  I was just going in for a routine eye exam to update my prescription. The guy said, "The good news is that we can skip the rest of the exam." The bad news is that I had cataracts. The same thing happens with people with glaucoma, or macular degeneration, or... Being able to see is a really big deal. Catching stuff that can make you blind rather abruptly is a big deal. On the other hand, as you say, being able to afford to get a prescription and glasses that fit them is also a big deal.
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Health and food should be accessible to all and shouldn’t be subject to profiteering. Labour should be compensated fairly but it should be subsidized from demand side by boosting purchasing power rather than supply side subsidies. This is of course more true for food/Ag than healthcare...but I feel it can be applicable to healthcare industry too.
    - cannonedhamster 7y ago
fooker 7y ago
The point of this article is that something which costs 30$ should not cost 3000$.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  What costs $3000??
  - Scoundreller 7y ago
    LASIK.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Are you suggesting that a pair of ground glass by a machine should be the same cost as laser surgery of the eye ball by a trained professional and/or AI?
      - tlb 7y ago
        At some level, you stick your head in a machine and it goes bzzzzzzt for 15 minutes. So you might ultimately get down to the cost of 15 minutes of machine time in an office, which is probably under $200.
        jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        Maybe one day. But we work with what we have now..I would rather people walk around and drive with proper vision aids. At the sweet spot of affordability.
        Scoundreller 7y ago
        Let’s say the machine costs $10m. Anyone that buys it wants a 10% return on it per year. That’s $114/hr. Can this machine run 24/7? Sure! I can show up for an appointment at 3:15AM.

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago

Essilor Luxxotica is a separate scam that explains why you pay so much for frames in most mainstream retailers, regardless of which brand of shop you go to. > Walking around and operating with impaired vision is a danger to public safety. Surely this is an argument for making it easier to get glasses? Better a slightly wonky/old prescription for glasses than none at all.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Of course, that’s true. They are two different issues. Its expensive because it’s a cartel system. That it’s mandatory to test before issuing new prescription grade eye glasses is sensible. Eye exams ought to be cheaper, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be mandatory to get an eye exam before filling a new order. Isn’t it a business liability to hand out glasses that’s supposed to make someone see better but without necessary preliminary testing? Imagine if they did it with pharmaceuticals.
- cyphar 7y ago
  Eye exams ought to be free, not just cheaper. Here in Australia, eye exams are free. Applying a cost to eye checks results in people being dissuaded from regular checkups and results in both more serious eye problems and possible road accidents. This is all part of our universal healthcare system -- and is something the US should really adopt (though, Sanders' proposed Medicare-for-All is actually even better than what we have here).
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    We don’t have anything free in the United States. There are many things different. For example, we take in more refugees and give sanctuary to immigrants who jumped the border. We also pay for eye exams. That’s just one example about how countries are different. I tire of country comparisons with Scandinavia or australia or India or China or Japan..or Mars. We are who we are..we can only work within the parameters we have and strive to be the best within it. I don’t even know who your incumbents are ..what qualifies you to speak of Sanders or Trump or Warren or our politicians. You are not here. Instead of demanding free everything, it would make more sense to incentivize health. ETA: I have often wondered why people want ‘free’ stuff? What is it that they offer for ‘free’ just like they receive for ‘free’? Do they work without pay? Create things for free? Code for free? Every free act of labour or service is charity or volunteerism. Even at subsidized level, this is true. An economy doesn’t work that way. A society doesn’t work that way. It would cause greater imbalances. Imbalances are entirely different and more difficult to remedy than inequalities. If anything ‘free’ will come disguised as a perk. From corporations than governments. Example: buy our video game and get free eye exams for three years. Amazon Prime does that. Become a prime member and get prime videos free or amazon music for free. And you have an opp to buy more when you are in..shipping isn’t free, but it’s kinda free, no?...one still pays for amazon prime. I would rather have a for profit corporation make a deal with me for services(goods are over consumed with our increasing global population leading to resource crunch and unsustainability) and get freebies than feed Big Gov to become a giant nanny state. That would be the beginning of the end, IMO.

Fezzik 7y ago

I don’t know if an analogy would help, but I thought the point the article was trying to make was sort of like distinguishing between a dude selling shoes at Foot Locker and a podiatrist - most people just need someone with a basic knowledge of shoes to get appropriate-enough footwear, while a small percentage of people with foot issues may need a podiatrist to do so, so how stupid would it be if we made everyone who wanted shoes go to a podiatrist to get shoes? It would be very stupid, and an excessive and unnecessary barrier to entry in to the wearing-shoes group. The same goes for glasses. The fact that we make everyone see a doctor that is formally trained to diagnose actual diseases and deformities of the eye just to get a pair of glasses is absurd. Almost anyone could be trained in a single day to prescribe glasses - calculating the needed power of lenses is a solved and mostly mechanical process. Sure, it would be great if everyone saw an expert in every field before making any purchasing decisions, but given that it is substantially more costly, cumbersome, and clearly unnecessary, why should we force people to do it?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I was just going in for a routine eye exam to update my prescription. The guy said, "The good news is that we can skip the rest of the exam." The bad news is that I had cataracts. The same thing happens with people with glaucoma, or macular degeneration, or... Being able to see is a really big deal. Catching stuff that can make you blind rather abruptly is a big deal. On the other hand, as you say, being able to afford to get a prescription and glasses that fit them is also a big deal.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Health and food should be accessible to all and shouldn’t be subject to profiteering. Labour should be compensated fairly but it should be subsidized from demand side by boosting purchasing power rather than supply side subsidies. This is of course more true for food/Ag than healthcare...but I feel it can be applicable to healthcare industry too.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago

fooker 7y ago

The point of this article is that something which costs 30$ should not cost 3000$.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
What costs $3000??
- Scoundreller 7y ago
  LASIK.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
    Are you suggesting that a pair of ground glass by a machine should be the same cost as laser surgery of the eye ball by a trained professional and/or AI?
    - tlb 7y ago
      At some level, you stick your head in a machine and it goes bzzzzzzt for 15 minutes. So you might ultimately get down to the cost of 15 minutes of machine time in an office, which is probably under $200.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        Maybe one day. But we work with what we have now..I would rather people walk around and drive with proper vision aids. At the sweet spot of affordability.
      - Scoundreller 7y ago
        Let’s say the machine costs $10m. Anyone that buys it wants a 10% return on it per year. That’s $114/hr. Can this machine run 24/7? Sure! I can show up for an appointment at 3:15AM.