Sunday, 29. August 2010
An unmistakable popular icon and a timeless fashion accessory, prescription sunglasses have become a preferred choice for many users. Thanks to the rising number of manufacturers and designer brands offering their own designs, prescription sunglasses are now available in myriad designs and range over a wide spectrum of colours. These sunglasses effortlessly radiate different kinds of appeals and as every individual is different, they can find the right pair of sunglasses to portray their personality. But these popular prescription sunglasses also have certain secrets which can help lead to wiser decisions. First of all, you should be wary about the cheap sunglasses which you get at any optical store. In the quest of saving money, you end up buying a cheap pair of prescription sunglasses which might be damaged, or considered disqualified after the production process.These prescription sunglasses, even though they save money, are a serious danger to your eyes and vision. To understand the risk, you have to first know the mechanism of how a pupil works. When the brightness is high, the pupil contracts to protect from the glare, and the light is soft, it dilates for a clearer vision. Now, in case you are wearing a malfunctioning pair of prescription sunglasses, the tint of the lenses will reduce the light and intuitively the pupil will get dilated. But the faulty UV coating won’t be able to block the harmful UV rays, thus more UV rays will reach the eye as your pupil is dilated. Thus, it is better to not a pair of prescription sunglasses at all than wearing a faulty one. Wearing discarded prescription glasses for a cheap price will make you end up in spending more money.Secondly, a popular misconception among prescription sunglasses is that the tint of the lenses actually determines the ability to block the ultra–violet rays. The colour of the lenses do have a direct relation to the amount of shade it offers to your eyes, but the UV coating is generally same on the kind of colours. The colours which are known to offer the best shade are brown, light grey and coffee. The next ones which come in efficiency are green, blue or amber coloured lenses. It is known that the lighter the tinge of the lenses, the lesser efficiency they have to offer your vision shade. An easy way to check whether the tinge on your lenses are lighter than what is required is to stand in front of a mirror and if you can see your eyes through the lenses then you will need darker lenses.
EyeExperts.co.uk, is the largest online glasses store that offers various prescription glasses,frames, prescription sunglasses and designer glasses for men and women at lowest prices.
Posted in Articles by Prescription Savings -
Monday, 7. June 2010
Just think about this for a minute. The extremes on both sides are blurring the healthcare issue to keep everyone confused and fighting in hopes of getting their party agendas through, but are no citizens looking at these topics with an unbiased eye?
This is, first off, not about the non-working poor. People who are on welfare have 100% government paid healthcare through Medicaid. It’s not insurance as affects the rest of the population. They pay nothing for the policy and there are no copayments, etc. That’s fallacy #1. This isn’t about people who don’t work.
The other group who doesn’t work are people on Social Security, through either retirement or disability. They are covered under a government sponsored health insurance to which they contribute called Medicare. This is more like traditional insurance in that they pay a premium and have copays for medical services, prescriptions, etc.
The government is already involved in health insurance through these 2 programs that focus on the non-working in our society.
This is supposed to be aimed at the working poor. It would be insurance of the more traditional type where the government would negotiate a large scale insurance policy (like it did with Medicare) to take advantage of the savings. Individual policies can run to thousands of dollars a month, which most working people can’t afford. Many employers no longer offer healthcare as a benefit or negotiate a contract collectively for their employees to lower the costs somewhat, but then pass the entireity of the policy costs onto the employee making it, many times, cost prohibitive. This is, more and more, going to become the case since there are too many people competing for too few jobs so employers are now in the position of not having to woo personnel. The economy is such that it’s the employer’s market.
So we have the working poor who are living paycheck to paycheck, maybe working more than one job, and still not able to afford health care. What happens when someone gets very ill? They go to the doctors or leave it until it’s really bad, since they don’t have the money, and end up in the hospital with enormous bills. These bills are extra enormous since doctors and hospitals charge out of pocket people substantially higher rates than insured people. Insurance companies negotiate contractual fees with providers in their network and will only pay up to a certain amount for services. In some cases it’s astounding the differences. One practice I worked in had a difference of over $4,000 for insured vs. uninsured.
So you don’t have the money for the doc, no insurance, and now you have a huge medical bill. Bankruptcy has been rewritten so that it’s not really an option anymore (not that it helped the providers substantially anyway as there usually isn’t much to take and divide) so the providers spend a fortune on collections and writing off debt, which they then pass along to the next person in line, ie. you.
Now providers are not uninanimously against this. Many have embraced it because there is a stipulation for mandatory coverage. This means they will be dealing with far less in bad debt and can at least be assured of getting paid the insurance portion. Where the rub for them comes in is those negotiated contractual fees. Looking at Medicare as their example of government negotiated insurance, they are scared. The rates for Medicare are substantially lower than any private insurance. Can they still make a living? Absolutely. They take Medicare because, if they don’t, they will have a smaller pool of patients to take. Some opt out, but if this is national, they will be even harder pressed to turn their noses up at it.
Medical costs are the highest in the country out of the entire world. Medical inflation is rampant and, unlike most things in a free market, you can’t always decide to just not purchase. Medical inflation has consistently outstripped regular inflation every year for the last 20 years. That means that the devices they use and the labor they purchase, the ground and construction of facilities, has not increased enough to justify their increase in price. Pharmaceutical companies stand to make more because most people are opting generics over the name brand prescriptions (some of which are several hundred dollars per treatment or month, for long term meds) and having insurance means that when the new meds come out, before generic are legally allowed (to protect R&D and keep companies encouraged to continue finding new meds) they will be allowed to charge their assinine prices and have people submit because they are paying $60 instead of $20. Much easier than the “it might work” generic at $50 OOP to $400 for the “this is the ticket” name brand.
The scariest part of this whole plan for the working poor is what are these “mandatory” rates going to be? Are they going to be equally unaffordable? Now you are violating the law if you don’t
I understand it’s long. I thought that people who actually care might have been willing to read an actual thorough analysis. I don’t do talking points like “Osama sounds like Obama” or scream one word slogans like “Nazi” at all republicans.
Posted in Answers by Prescription Savings -
Sunday, 23. May 2010
I was diagnosed with sleep apnea a couple years ago. I was doing well on the CPAP machine in the beginning, but lately it seems like its not putting out air as powerfully as it did in the beginning. Although I told my doctor that I believe the problem is the machine, he says that I still need to be “retested” since its been a while since I was diagnosed. I have a new insurance, well, a Health Savings Account with a $2,500 deductible awaiting. Retesting will cost a minimum of a few thousand dollars. I wanted to try to purchase the machine myself online, but you need a prescription to purchase one. Is there a way around this? Also, I once heard someone mention they were using a CPAP machine but were unable to get use to wearing it at night. Instead, they were fitting with some type of “dental device” that they insert during the night to keep their airway open. They said they haven’t used their CPAP machine since. Has anyone ever heard of such a device? Do you know what the name of it is?
Posted in Answers by Prescription Savings -
Monday, 12. April 2010
Let’s just say that doing nothing is not an option. OK
And that Obama-Care is a crappy option that will be hugely expensive, that will steal people’s Medicare Trust Fund, and that will only make a small dent in the problem of the Uninsured.
OK — those are just assumptions for the sake of argument, they are not final conclusions, they are just set up for my question, which is “What Could the Government fo Instead of Obama-Care?”
Here are some possibilities:
1. Very small Federal primary care clinics staffed by 3 or 4 doctors and supervised on a monthly basis by ultra-highly qualified doctors who visit every month or so to make sure the primary care is good or very good. These clinics would be operated on a “Good Samaritan” basis, and on a “Sovereign Immunity” basis, so if mistakes were made the Federal government could not be sued. It could however pay fair and reasonable compensation for gross negligence by the doctors it hired and supervised. Fair and reasonable would be decided by a formula, and by a panel of expert supervising physicians. So these primary care clinics would operated in a limited liability zone — not subject to local state jury trials for medical malpractice, and all patients seeking care in such clinics would have to knowingly sign a waiver of their right to sue. No waiver, no care, back out on the street, no Good Samaritan here to save you, try County General.
These little clinics should number about 10,000. They should basically be in the business of taking the primary care load off emergency rooms. They should do preventative medicine, and help clients get further care as needed. So your basic heart pills, and diabetes pills, and athsma treatments don’t have to be done for $1000 in a busy emergecy room, they can be done for $75 in a micro-clinic run by the Federal government. That’s a savings of $925 for each patient. Figure 20 patients a day, 300 days a year, pretty soon you’re talking real money (like $550,000 per year saved for each doctor on the staff). You could actually pay the doctors pretty well out of that saved amount, right? Let’s say $150,000 per year starting salary. You still clear $400,000 of societal savings for each doctor working.
This is all based on the idea that if the government wants there to be more healthcare, it should “just do it”
If the government wants the leaves raked off the White House lawn, it should “just do it”
The doing concept only seems strange in a world where the government has gotten used to writing 16,000 pages of detailed commands and instructions for anything it wants done — so that other people can do it.
I say skip the paperwork — if you want something done — do it! The Doing Concept, part of what made America great.
How about this idea for a second concept: Let the VA Pharmacy fill prescriptions for Vets based on the orders of the Vets’ own doctors, so long as those doctors are: (1) Board Certified (2) America Educated and (3) in Good standing as Physicians (their licenses are fully in operational and valid and current). So there’s no reason whatsoever to imagine that the Vets own doctor is not good enough to write the prescription. OK — then just fill it! It’s like the Just Do It concept.
Don’t fuss, don’t make the vet get a whole new doctor and come into your system, just let them have the benefit of government buying power, so the meds go out to the vet at about 20% of retail which is what the VA pays for them. The VA can charge for postage too.
Again this would be on a “Sovereign Immunity” “Malpractice Waiver” basis so the U.S. government would take no legal risk in this program. No chance of being sued. Fraud is still possible, but liability from lawsuits is not. The fraud can be squeezed out of the system by investigation and relentless prosecution of malfeasors — bad doctors who use their position to cheat Uncle Sam.
These are just two ideas. My basic idea is to take the problem down by layers, starting with the easy layers. More primary care — do it. More meds at fair prices — do it.
It’s the Doing Concept.
Over time this will make the problem smaller. Not vanish — but smaller. Instead of 45 million uninsurables — maybe in 10 years just 25 million. That’s way better than Obama-Care is likely to do. And at 10% of the cost of Obama-Care. And without stealing the Medicare Trust Fund.
It’s better policy because it’s a better value. It impacts the problem at low cost and low risk by using “doing” instead of “commanding” as its method of proceeding. Raking the leaves up, instead of writing a 16,000 page set of commands to get the leaves raked up. Doing — wow there’s a thought!
I have never watched FOX News. I have never read any FOX publication. I never listen to FOX radio.
Any resemblance between anything I say, and anything said on FOX is either coincidental or it arises from FOX people reading my posts (here and elsewhere) picking up the ideas, and making media talk with my ideas, without giving me credit for them, which I don’t mind. I’m with Rabidranath Tagore, the Indian poet, when he said, “Whatever isn’t given … is lost!” So pick my brain,, pick my bones .. it’s all given freely. But it is irritating when people think I get my ideas from FOX. It’s really unjust — a bad rap. The next person who says that should include a quote from FOX that is the paraphrase of what I say in my posts. You have to show that they said it first, then I said it second. Otherwise, I couldn’t possibly be getting my stuff from FOX, you see that, right? Just bring the quotes, or stop the bad rap. Thanks.
Posted in Answers by Prescription Savings -
Monday, 29. March 2010
I have always used Frontline or Advantix for flea control on my dog. Recently my income dropped drastically and I need to consider all avenues for savings. I wonder if anyone has tried the new non prescription Biospot and if they have any feedback regards this product?
Posted in Answers by Prescription Savings -
Thursday, 18. March 2010
Your company’s high deductible plan is a great solution to your problems – and it already exists! Your company just doesn’t tell you about it because it’s a FREE plan, that’s right – NO monthly premiums. you get the same discounts as people with a PPO plan, only you pay nothing. Your deductible is $2200 a year per person, family plans are an even better deal if you have 3 or more people participating because there’s a household cap. Traditional PPO requires a $2000 medical and $1000 prescription deductible – totally separate from each other, where the high deductible plan is combined.
Again NO monthly premiums, same benefits as PPO’s, same doctors, same choices. How do you pay for this if there’s no deductible? You can enroll in a government savings account – again, free of cost, tax-free even! You earn interest on the money you don’t use, and you can keep it for the rest of your life. You get a debit card so you have instant access to your money. You can save up to the deductible..
so there’s literally NOTHING coming out of your pocket.
Do we still have excuses for not having health insurance? I think FREE is pretty darn affordable. What do YOU think?
This plan is offered by EVERY company – it’s probably referred to as your high deductible plan. They HAVE to offer it to you, they just rarely ever explain it to anyone because then they can’t collect premiums from you.
Please, pass along this information to everyone you know. Don’t allow them to pay any more for insurance than they have to. Call an independent insurance agent and just ask them to explain this plan to you, and ask for their opinions. You can’t beat free!
I have roughly $90 taken out of my check before taxes (I get paid every 2 weeks) and it covers everything. I just pay the doctors from my debit card. The only downfall is if you have high expenses at the beginning of the year, you have to pay them out of pocket and reimburse yourself later OR pay the doc as funds are deposited into your account.
My deductible for the year has already been met, so every doctor visit & every prescription I have filled is completely FREE through the end of the year. I’ve NEVER met my deductible through the PPO plan I’d always joined, and it seemed like they always found some reason to deny my claims. This has not been an issue for me since I joined this high deductible plan.
In my case, I had surgery which ate up my entire deductible. Because I’m depositing the $2200 into my account evenly throughout the year, I just make payments to my doctor as the money is put into my account. It’s like any other credit/debit card in the fact that you can’t spend more than you have.
Doctors don’t charge interest for having a balance with them, and they don’t send you to a collection agency if you pay them regularly. Just something to think about.
Actually the deductible is $900 a year LESS than the traditional PPO – just an FYI
Posted in Answers by Prescription Savings -