How many of you provide health insurance benefits to your office staff? If
you do, I'm sure you are aware of the skyrocketing cost of health
insurance premiums, increasingly difficult for employers to afford, and
especially for small business, like your offices!

Wouldn't it be nice if the government did the insuring (as with medicare),
and employers were not expected to provide such benefits any more, taking
it off your backs?

In fact, that would be good for American business in general. One reason
that U.S. companies are finding it harder to compete with foreign
companies, is the immense amount that U.S. companies have to pay in health
insurance premiums. For instance, the U.S. auto industry--the fact that
they have to pay so much of their income in health insurance premiums,
makes it hard to compete with European and Japanese companies, who don't
have to pay a cent in health insurance premiums--since that is handled by
the government, not by employers.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be costs involved in a national health care
plan. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Of course, taxes would have
to be higher (as they are in those other countries), to pay for the plan.
However, I think the cost involved in the increased taxes, would be much
lower than what is now being paid in private health insurance premiums,
cost of emergency room care for the uninsured, etc. In general, I think
the overall financial cost to society, would be much less than with the
present system, and it would be a great relief for employers, not to have
to deal with providing health insurance for their employees any more. (As
well, of course as the humanitarian boon that everyone would be
covered--employed or not.)

Optometry training is relatively easy to get admissions to ( < 3.0 gpa
in undergrad ), and is not comprehensive as medical school and
opthalmology residency.

On Jul 12, 4:24 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty... at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote:

So you're saying you should have to wait a week because optometrists aren't
"supposed to" do what they're trained to do? Optometry schools aren't
"supposed" to teach microbiology and pharmacology?

Who does fillings better, a family dentist or an oral surgeon?

Opthalmology residency is highly competitive. It requires full 4 yrs
of medical school and an acceptance to an opthalmology residency,
which is an extra several years. Many US med grads do not get accepted
to a single one of these programs.

Optometry training is relatively easy to get admissions to ( < 3.0 gpa
in undergrad ), and is not comprehensive as medical school and
opthalmology residency.

I do not work in visual sciences and can't comment first-hand but this
is something to think about.

The fillings analogy is not a good example. Both general dentists and
oral surgeons undergo the exact same 4 yrs in dental school, where
fillings tend to be the bread/butter in the restorative curriculum.

The fillings analogy is not a good example. Both general dentists and
oral surgeons undergo the exact same 4 yrs in dental school

I have an eye infection, and went to my optometrist about it, a few days
ago. Why? I've been to him for contact lenses, and I haven't been to an
ophthalmologist, don't know any. Also, he's close, and when I called, they
said I could come in right away, for him to see me.

The optometrist seemed knowledgeable about it, but perhaps an
ophthalmologist would have been better. I don't know. He put me on
antibiotic eye drops (zymar), and of course I'm not wearing my contacts now.
I don't know what an ophthalmologist might have done differently.

Although I have vision insurance, which paid part of the cost for my contact
lens fitting and lenses, I was told at the optometrist's office that my
vision insurance doesn't pay at all for an eye infection, and I had to pay
$65 on the spot, for a few minute office visit.