Of Seeing and the Point

So the good news is I have 20:20 vision. My eyes are great! The bad news is I have great eyes with 20:20 vision. Indulge me as I explain:

I recently noticed that I have great trouble driving at night. The glares from the other cars going in the opposite direction make me slow down to a crawl as I wait for them to pass. (And if you’re the wise guy who drives with full lights, I do hope that you make enough money to buy your own private island where that’s OK …) I figured that short of tinting my windshield, which I learnt was against the law, I have the option of getting spects that would not only sort out the lights by night they’d also help me deal with the sun by day. Great! I happily went to the optician who told me that they had just what I was looking for, complete with the local or imported variety depending on the depth of my pocket.

“Oh, I have insurance,” I said in a very self assured tone. I thank God that I have very few medical needs so I don’t often make use of my employer’s medical cover.

“You do?” the attendant asked seeming a little concerned. “Who is your insurer?”

“Company X,” I say beginning to get bored with the conversation and eager to try on the exciting looking frames.

“Ah,” he says in a deflated tone.

“What’s the problem?” I ask, my interest reignited.

“Well, you see, X will only pay for the lenses if you have a prescription. We did the eye test and your eyes are fine, so you’d need to consider alternative means of footing the bill.” He explained. I could tell that this was an explanation he’d given out many times before.

What annoys me is the fact that if I keep driving as I am, I will either ruin my eyes (at which point the insurance will gladly step in) or cause a grisly accident costing the insurer so much more. Is that reasoning not flawed? Am I the only one that sees a problem?

So here I am forced to fork out money for what my employer has ideally already paid for. Great!

Have a fair January!