AARoads Forum

Non-Road Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: bandit957 on November 28, 2017, 02:28:36 PM

Title: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: bandit957 on November 28, 2017, 02:28:36 PM
I found something interesting laying in the street yesterday...

(https://i.imgur.com/0uYqLU1.jpg)
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 28, 2017, 02:45:25 PM
ADD got him again.

Bubble gum...bubble gum...bubble gum...bubble gum...ohhhhhh...eyeglass frame.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: roadman on November 28, 2017, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on November 28, 2017, 02:28:36 PM
I found something interesting laying in the street yesterday...

(https://i.imgur.com/0uYqLU1.jpg)
Standard insurance company approved eyeglass frames circa 1981.  There was another version - same style in brown.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: renegade on November 28, 2017, 03:06:56 PM
 
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 28, 2017, 02:45:25 PM
ADD got him again.

Bubble gum...bubble gum...bubble gum...bubble gum...ohhhhhh...eyeglass frame.

:-D
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: hbelkins on November 29, 2017, 10:51:10 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 28, 2017, 02:58:28 PM
Standard insurance company approved eyeglass frames circa 1981.  There was another version - same style in brown.

What is this "insurance company approved eyeglass frames" phenomenon of which you speak?

(Says the guy who has never had vision insurance coverage -- or dental for that matter, just medical.)
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: Max Rockatansky on November 29, 2017, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 28, 2017, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on November 28, 2017, 02:28:36 PM
I found something interesting laying in the street yesterday...

(https://i.imgur.com/0uYqLU1.jpg)
Standard insurance company approved eyeglass frames circa 1981.  There was another version - same style in brown.

It wouldn't be the late 1970s/early 1980s if there wasn't a poop colored brown option available.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: vdeane on November 29, 2017, 01:05:33 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2017, 10:51:10 AM
Quote from: roadman on November 28, 2017, 02:58:28 PM
Standard insurance company approved eyeglass frames circa 1981.  There was another version - same style in brown.

What is this "insurance company approved eyeglass frames" phenomenon of which you speak?

(Says the guy who has never had vision insurance coverage -- or dental for that matter, just medical.)
Maybe something about which ones they'd cover?  These days, they cover a set amount, and anything over is just paid by the consumer.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: bandit957 on November 29, 2017, 08:12:38 PM
Insurance usually covers glasses only if you don't need them. Same for any other procedure, device, or medication.

At least that's been our experience.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: Roadgeekteen on November 29, 2017, 09:25:24 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 28, 2017, 02:45:25 PM
ADD got him again.

Bubble gum...bubble gum...bubble gum...bubble gum...ohhhhhh...eyeglass frame.
Chewing used pieces of gum...
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: hbelkins on November 30, 2017, 09:58:11 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on November 29, 2017, 08:12:38 PM
Insurance usually covers glasses only if you don't need them. Same for any other procedure, device, or medication.

At least that's been our experience.

My employer-provided insurance has never included either vision or dental, although there are optional policies available that I would have to pay for out of pocket.

From the time I first started working until the mid 1990s, my coverage was major medical. Sometime around 1993 or 94, my employer switched to a HMO. Since then, I have had something similar to a HMO up until three years ago, when Obamacare eliminated that and now I'm in something called a CDHP. The first $1,000 of medical expenses for my wife and me is covered, then we have to pay 100 percent until we reach a certain deductible or out-of-pocket limit. It sucks, but the alternative with co-pays (now called a PPO plan) is prohibitively expensive.

I contribute to a flexible spending account that I use to cover vision and dental expenses, and other medical expenses such as office visits and prescriptions. It's not insurance, but it amounts to tax-free income since the dollars that go into the FSA are pre-tax.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: bandit957 on November 30, 2017, 10:23:38 AM
My dad was a member of the milk truck drivers' union for 40 years, so we probably had pretty good insurance in the '70s. The union became weaker in the '80s, so I don't think we had union insurance then. Instead, by the time I was a teenager, we had junk insurance from a large corporation. I got sick every time I walked out the front door, but our insurance wouldn't cover treatment. It covered incompetent quacks but not legitimate medicine.

But I think I was taken pretty good care of when I was very young in the '70s, which is one of the reasons I'm pretty confident in saying the union saved my life.

I don't remember HMO's coming along and REALLY gunking things up until the '90s.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: Roadgeekteen on November 30, 2017, 11:53:35 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2017, 09:58:11 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on November 29, 2017, 08:12:38 PM
Insurance usually covers glasses only if you don't need them. Same for any other procedure, device, or medication.

At least that's been our experience.

My employer-provided insurance has never included either vision or dental, although there are optional policies available that I would have to pay for out of pocket.

From the time I first started working until the mid 1990s, my coverage was major medical. Sometime around 1993 or 94, my employer switched to a HMO. Since then, I have had something similar to a HMO up until three years ago, when Obamacare eliminated that and now I'm in something called a CDHP. The first $1,000 of medical expenses for my wife and me is covered, then we have to pay 100 percent until we reach a certain deductible or out-of-pocket limit. It sucks, but the alternative with co-pays (now called a PPO plan) is prohibitively expensive.

I contribute to a flexible spending account that I use to cover vision and dental expenses, and other medical expenses such as office visits and prescriptions. It's not insurance, but it amounts to tax-free income since the dollars that go into the FSA are pre-tax.
I wish all of this was free.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2017, 12:07:59 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2017, 09:58:11 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on November 29, 2017, 08:12:38 PM
Insurance usually covers glasses only if you don't need them. Same for any other procedure, device, or medication.

At least that's been our experience.

My employer-provided insurance has never included either vision or dental, although there are optional policies available that I would have to pay for out of pocket.

From the time I first started working until the mid 1990s, my coverage was major medical. Sometime around 1993 or 94, my employer switched to a HMO. Since then, I have had something similar to a HMO up until three years ago, when Obamacare eliminated that and now I'm in something called a CDHP. The first $1,000 of medical expenses for my wife and me is covered, then we have to pay 100 percent until we reach a certain deductible or out-of-pocket limit. It sucks, but the alternative with co-pays (now called a PPO plan) is prohibitively expensive.

I contribute to a flexible spending account that I use to cover vision and dental expenses, and other medical expenses such as office visits and prescriptions. It's not insurance, but it amounts to tax-free income since the dollars that go into the FSA are pre-tax.

Working with the state our plan is pretty decent, although the amount out of my paycheck every 2 weeks is infinity higher than when I started working with the state in 1998. At that time, $0 was taken out for healthcare.  Dental was pricey though (I was told)...$3.60 a pay.  I laughed when told that, being I was paying $20 a month via Cobra from a job I had prior to my last job...where dental was actually higher.  Today, it's hundreds of dollars a pay in total for those benefits.

Vision though was always horrible.  We could get $40 back a year for eyecare (glasses, exam, etc), but that's it. 
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 01:31:18 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2017, 12:07:59 PM
the amount out of my paycheck every 2 weeks is infinity higher than when I started working with the state in 1998. At that time, $0 was taken out for healthcare.

Nicely done!  You used the phrase "infinitely higher", and it was actually true.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: Scott5114 on November 30, 2017, 02:45:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2017, 09:58:11 AM
I contribute to a flexible spending account that I use to cover vision and dental expenses, and other medical expenses such as office visits and prescriptions. It's not insurance, but it amounts to tax-free income since the dollars that go into the FSA are pre-tax.

The insurance rep at open enrollment was trying to hook us on the FSA, and appeared quite taken aback by my pointing out what a horrific deal it was. If you know for certain that you will be spending that money, it's a good deal, but if there's any chance you won't, I feel like the risk of the money expiring isn't worth the meager tax savings. After all, anything that expires unused in the FSA is functionally the same as paying 100% tax.  I'd much rather pay the tax on the income and then use it for out-of-pocket expenses.

Of course, our healthcare situation is unusual since my wife is covered by the tribal healthcare system, so the only medical expenses we have are for her neurologist and my dental cleanings. The only other time the FSA would be of any use would be in an emergency. Our tax situation, too, is unusual, as we pay a lower effective tax rate due to business losses.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: hbelkins on November 30, 2017, 03:42:50 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 30, 2017, 02:45:34 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2017, 09:58:11 AM
I contribute to a flexible spending account that I use to cover vision and dental expenses, and other medical expenses such as office visits and prescriptions. It's not insurance, but it amounts to tax-free income since the dollars that go into the FSA are pre-tax.

The insurance rep at open enrollment was trying to hook us on the FSA, and appeared quite taken aback by my pointing out what a horrific deal it was. If you know for certain that you will be spending that money, it's a good deal, but if there's any chance you won't, I feel like the risk of the money expiring isn't worth the meager tax savings. After all, anything that expires unused in the FSA is functionally the same as paying 100% tax.  I'd much rather pay the tax on the income and then use it for out-of-pocket expenses.

Of course, our healthcare situation is unusual since my wife is covered by the tribal healthcare system, so the only medical expenses we have are for her neurologist and my dental cleanings. The only other time the FSA would be of any use would be in an emergency. Our tax situation, too, is unusual, as we pay a lower effective tax rate due to business losses.

I've never had issues with leaving any money in a FSA, even before I had to start paying more for my routine medical stuff. I'd usually end up with maybe $25 or $30 left in it as December approached, so I'd go buy a bunch of contact lens solutions.

But now you can roll over a pretty decent amount to next year, so that shouldn't be an issue anymore.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: Scott5114 on November 30, 2017, 06:31:33 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if our FSA plan just sucks–it is the private sector, after all.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:44:18 PM
I stopped wearing glasses back in 2007 or so.  I'm slightly far-sighted, which basically means I can see just fine.  I just got tired of breaking or losing glasses every so often, so I decided to just go without.  I've started to struggle recently with reading in dim light, so I know I'm going to need to start wearing them again soon.  It's one of those things I just keep putting off till I have the money.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: Roadgeekteen on November 30, 2017, 09:59:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 30, 2017, 06:44:18 PM
I stopped wearing glasses back in 2007 or so.  I'm slightly far-sighted, which basically means I can see just fine.  I just got tired of breaking or losing glasses every so often, so I decided to just go without.  I've started to struggle recently with reading in dim light, so I know I'm going to need to start wearing them again soon.  It's one of those things I just keep putting off till I have the money.
I still wear mine but I take them off a lot because I can see fine without them.
Title: Re: For 1981 glasses wearers
Post by: Henry on December 01, 2017, 09:45:47 AM
It was around this time that I first wore glasses, and I have ever since. The only time I don't is if I'm swimming in the pool or taking a bath.