Why the fuck do I have to renew my contact prescription *feeling libertarian today*

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I tried to order a new box of contacts from a website and I get a message back telling me my prescription is out of date. Then I come to find out it's a Federal law that all eyesight prescriptions expire in 1 year. So now I have to go out and get a new prescription for the same shit I was wearing a week ago.

I understand there are plenty of reasons I should go to the eye doctor and have him check my eyes for problems. But that should be between me and my doctor. He can advise me whatever he wants. The Feds however should have zero say as to what I put in my eye. Until it causes my eye to explode killing everyone around me, it's no ones business but mine.

I am sick of having what I can do to my body policed.

You've been regulatiowned!

[bheld]

Why did the government give up its power to negotiate the price of prescription drugs?

Why does the government downsize the military and then contract the same work out to private companies at 10 times the cost?

Why can't we re-import drugs from Canada?

Why does the EPA keep states from exceeding their low standards?


The answer to yours and all of the above questions is that our government is owned by special interests. Government is now a tool to help private industry profit.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I tried to order a new box of contacts from a website and I get a message back telling me my prescription is out of date. Then I come to find out it's a Federal law that all eyesight prescriptions expire in 1 year. So now I have to go out and get a new prescription for the same shit I was wearing a week ago.

I understand there are plenty of reasons I should go to the eye doctor and have him check my eyes for problems. But that should be between me and my doctor. He can advise me whatever he wants. The Feds however should have zero say as to what I put in my eye. Until it causes my eye to explode killing everyone around me, it's no ones business but mine.

I am sick of having what I can do to my body policed.

How about if you just cause a car accident due to wearing contacts that don't match your eyesight?

Maybe instead of forcing you to get a new prescription every year, they just suspend your license until you get contacts that match a new prescription.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Simius

How about if you just cause a car accident due to wearing contacts that don't match your eyesight?

Maybe instead of forcing you to get a new prescription every year, they just suspend your license until you get contacts that match a new prescription.

What if you run over my dog this afternoon backing out of your driveway? They should force you to buy a car with a rear-view camera.

What if you get me sick and I die? They should force you to get a check-up at your doctor every 3 weeks.

What if... What if... Good government can't govern on what ifs.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Simius

How about if you just cause a car accident due to wearing contacts that don't match your eyesight?

Maybe instead of forcing you to get a new prescription every year, they just suspend your license until you get contacts that match a new prescription.

maybe i can just be held responsible for causing a car wreck

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

maybe i can just be held responsible for causing a car wreck

Just maybe you can tell better than the government when you can't see well enough to drive?


Is that a far out idea?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Simius

How about if you just cause a car accident due to wearing contacts that don't match your eyesight?

Maybe instead of forcing you to get a new prescription every year, they just suspend your license until you get contacts that match a new prescription.

What if the cost of forcing everyone who wears contacts to get a checkup every year costs consumers $1 billion per year?

What if only 5 lives are saved each year at a cost of $200 million per year?

Seems like a whole hell of a lot of money to me just to save five lives.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Publius

What if you run over my dog this afternoon backing out of your driveway? They should force you to buy a car with a rear-view camera.

What if you get me sick and I die? They should force you to get a check-up at your doctor every 3 weeks.

What if... What if... Good government can't govern on what ifs.

I'm not sure those are really valid comparisons, you already have to have good eyesight to be licensed to drive, the government can certainly take away that license if you fail to meet conditions

There's no real reason to be against making sure those licensed to drive are able to see, read signs, etc.. properly.. the idea that, "Well, if they fuck up and hurt someone, they can sue and recover damages" doesn't bring back someone's ability to walk or whatever..

I wouldn't be against annual eye exams for yearly renewals, especially as age increases

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Seems like a whole hell of a lot of money to me just to save five lives.

Yeah, unless it's someone's life you happen to care about. It's easy to brush off the value of being "only 5 people" when talking so broadly and philosophically (as seems to be common when similar ideological arguments are made)

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, unless it's someone's life you happen to care about.

Hmm, let's see. Let us say that there is a life saving surgery that only costs $100,000. A billion dollars could pay for 10,000 of these surgeries. So yea, $200 million seems like a lot per life.

You also have to consider the morality of forcing people to pay for something they do not want to pay for.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Publius

What if you run over my dog this afternoon backing out of your driveway? They should force you to buy a car with a rear-view camera.

What if you get me sick and I die? They should force you to get a check-up at your doctor every 3 weeks.

What if... What if... Good government can't govern on what ifs.

Just saying... shrapnel from exploding eyeballs isn't the only way to harm others by not having a good prescription.

Not the same since you getting sick and dying doesn't cause you eyeballs to explode killing everyone around you, is it? (Or a bit less facetiously, getting sick and dying does kill anyone else)

More to the point, having poor eyesight can put other's at risk if you are driving. And if consumers were rational they'd probably get their eyesight checked yearly anyway if they have contacts just to maximize their ability to see and to prevent any unknown problems from sneaking up on them. But people aren't rational. Often times they put it off for years to save a few bucks. I don't really see a problem with only filling current prescriptions for contacts or other drugs. The rule of only letting a prescription be current for 1 year makes sense since how would a doctor know that the prescription is still a good one if he hasn't seen you for 2 or 3 or 5 years?

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Hmm, let's see. Let us say that there is a life saving surgery that only costs $100,000. A billion dollars could pay for 10,000 of these surgeries. So yea, $200 million seems like a lot per life.

You also have to consider the morality of forcing people to pay for something they do not want to pay for.

What if it only costs a million per year and it saves 16 million lives? That's like $0.06 per life.

Instead of making up numbers and acting like they have any meaning, come up with realistic numbers. Making up completely arbitrary numbers then comparing them with other costs is silly. Your original post was okay, as you had a bit of a point, but you are pushing it beyond reason.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Simius

Just saying... shrapnel from exploding eyeballs isn't the only way to harm others by not having a good prescription.

Not the same since you getting sick and dying doesn't cause you eyeballs to explode killing everyone around you, is it? (Or a bit less facetiously, getting sick and dying does kill anyone else)

More to the point, having poor eyesight can put other's at risk if you are driving. And if consumers were rational they'd probably get their eyesight checked yearly anyway if they have contacts just to maximize their ability to see and to prevent any unknown problems from sneaking up on them. But people aren't rational. Often times they put it off for years to save a few bucks. I don't really see a problem with only filling current prescriptions for contacts or other drugs. The rule of only letting a prescription be current for 1 year makes sense since how would a doctor know that the prescription is still a good one if he hasn't seen you for 2 or 3 or 5 years?

So do you have any proof whatsoever that there is a serious enough problem to require people to get their eyesight checked every year to get a new prescription?

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Simius

What if it only costs a million per year and it saves 16 million lives? That's like $0.06 per life.

Instead of making up numbers and acting like they have any meaning, come up with realistic numbers. Making up completely arbitrary numbers then comparing them with other costs is silly. Your original post was okay, as you had a bit of a point, but you are pushing it beyond reason.

But we have no idea do we? As such, you have no ground to stand on to insist it should be required.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

So do you have any proof whatsoever that there is a serious enough problem to require people to get their eyesight checked every year to get a new prescription?

I can safely say that over a year later, the doctor wouldn't know if there is a serious enough problem that would make his script invalid. I suppose I could see if I can google something about how long prescriptions last on average before they are changed to a different strength... but I'm not sure if that would satisfy your curiosity or if it would just be a waste of time.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

But we have no idea do we? As such, you have no ground to stand on to insist it should be required.

That is true... I have no idea how many accidents are prevented. But that doesn't change my original point that driving with a poor perscription endangers others. It also doesn't change the fact that saying "zOMG! There could have been 10,000 life saving surgeries for every accident prevented!" is beyond absurd.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

But we have no idea do we? As such, you have no ground to stand on to insist it should be required.

If you're going to use numbers as a basis for your critique of why it's a bad idea, then certainly he can request you back up your assertion that it would "cost too much per life" to be worth it

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by Simius

I can safely say that over a year later, the doctor wouldn't know if there is a serious enough problem that would make his script invalid. I suppose I could see if I can google something about how long prescriptions last on average before they are changed to a different strength... but I'm not sure if that would satisfy your curiosity or if it would just be a waste of time.

No, what you would have to do is a cost/benefit analysis showing that it is more beneficial to force people, who wear contacts, to get an eye exam every year than letting them spend their money on everything else that they could spend their money on.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by motivez