I don’t know which one is the bad parent here.
Get ready for shitty Gen-X. There are a fair few of us that are utter cunts, just like their Boomer parents, here’s a fine example of that.
Can confirm from the tail end of Gen X. There were some total cunts that called themselves neo-conservatives that I went to a Liberal Arts College, called Transylvania University with. One would have thought they would have taken even a cursory look at that school and declared it part of “The Leftist Elite,” but they still ended up there somehow.
No no no, you don’t understand! Liberal Arts colleges are infested with leftist agents and propaganda, and one could never gain anything of value studying there!
Unless, of course, you’re a conservative man who studied economics; then, your education makes you knowledgable and impressive. Of course, of course…
Ok, but Transylvania University? Like even if you have any clue as to why a liberal arts university in Lexington, KY is called that, you have to know that some pretty weird people are going to be attracted to the name alone. Rocky Horror Picture Show fans, Vampire fans of a holy shit spectrum from Bram Stoker all the way to Anne Rice, while I was there. Not to mention artistic freaks of every single sort. I really don’t know what they were thinking.
Fair enough, my sentiment was towards liberal arts schools in general. Transylvania University is quite a name.
Fuck of with that stupid generationism. This is narcissism, a mental illness which exists in people of all ages.
Generationism is something that is made up to make people forget about the actual structural problems in society.
The fuck does no real bills mean? Does eating, rent and gas/insurance not count as real bill?
Forget the bills, why does she clarify no real kids?
Pets, or the more grotesque option, step-children.
Stranger still: “no real kid(s)”.
I assumed that they might be referring to either pets or kids in her class at school. Don’t teachers have to pay for stuff out of pocket a lot of times?
I just assumed she lived at home a d mom and dad paid for her car, insurance and cell phone. If she’s lucky, they also paid for college.
More importantly what does no real kids mean?
Step kids? Only daughters? Just pets?
Students, maybe?
Probably the kids she has in classroom.
You know what, i kinda agree. Eating, rent, transport, etc shouldnt be real bills. A teacher 100% should be able to pay for those easily.
I mean that is how it works in my country, not so much the US
“No one has audacity like the people you raised” proceeds to post about it to potentially millions of people, you know like people without audacity do.
How dare a family member ask for help. Who do they think they are?
Remember when our parents told us social media is bad? Here it is, they are exactly why.
Don’t bleep out these names please, let the world know who these douchebags are
My daughter that is under-paid because she’s a teacher and they are all under-paid is asking me for financial help, and I’m a scumbag outing her for trying to have a better quality of life with a medical procedure early in her working career.
Man, I hate the internet sometimes…
Shitty parents are the reason why I’m a sugar daddy.
To be fair a pair you can get a pair of glasses on Zenni for like 20 bucks.
With prescription lenses?
Yep, also need your pupillary distance. i havent gotten an exam in so long i cant remember if thats included in the prescript. Luckily my eyesight hasnt gotten worse (yet).
Wearing my 26 dollar photochromic zennis for this comment. Been using zenni glasses for the better part of a decade.
It’s not usually but you can print out the little gauge thing or use their in browser tool if you have a Webcam and don’t mind your face being scanned by a discount glasses company in the decade of machine learning we’re about to go through
I got a pair of prescription glasses and sun glasses from Payne glasses for $80. I stopped wearing contacts a few years ago, and I work outside. I really missed having sun glasses.
Yep! You just get a prescription from the eye doctor and enter the values on the site. 20 bucks later and boom you have some very reliable and inexpensive glasses. I’ve been using these guys for years and had basically zero issues.
From what I remember, $20 gets you a premium pair! I was getting glasses from Zenni and others for <$10.
If the daughter is looking at Lasik, it’s not out of necessity.
This is bad form all around… like, yeah, be a parent and love your kids more than yourself.
Even if you are incapable of that, at least be smart enough to not be shitty to the people who will pick your nursing home.
If it happens, the following sentiment, a few decades down the road:
“Look at this shitty nursing home my daughter shipped me off to. AFTER ALL I’VE DONE FOR HER!”
And it could even be a good nursing home barely within the means of a son or daughter, suffering from some sort of Stockholm Syndrome sense of duty. The narcissistic, miserable, martyrdom complex is a goddamned guarantee.
Wanting Lasik surgery doesn’t mean she’s blind, she just doesn’t want to wear glasses anymore. It’s a vanity thing.
Not necessarily a vanity thing, it’s also a pain in the ass and a life long expense. Do you know how many times I’ve woken up and found my glasses fell some where and I can’t find them? Or the screws loosened and a lense fell out while I’m out doing something? And a pair of glasses can run you anywhere from $200-$800+ every few years, let alone the optometrist appointments to get your prescription updated.
If you need your glasses prescription updated then the Lasik correction you had also no longer works, you still need the optometrist appointments to check eye health. A new pair of glasses can be had for a lot less than $200 as well.
I haven’t paid ridiculous optometrist prices for glasses in this millenium and I don’t understand why people still do.
I don’t think the mom’s laughing if she’s blind. Yes, it’s a pain in the ass, sometimes, to have glasses. But no, I’m not paying for lasik for my kid who needs glasses/contacts.
Downvotin’ @[email protected] doesn’t make them wrong.
“no real kids”
“no real bills”
🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
the fact that he added “real” to both means she has them but he somehow doesn’t consider them real, whatever the fuck that means. but this sounds like a total piece of shit and i feel sorry for the 24 year old.
nothing like ruining the economy and the future for the next generation and then refusing to help.
I think everyone is misunderstanding the “kids” part.
The daughter is a teacher, meaning she has “kids” (i.e. in her classroom), but not “real kids”, as in, kids of her own. A strange way of saying it, but I’m sure that’s what she meant.
The no real bills part… that could mean anything. If she’s living with her folks and doesn’t have to pay rent, utilities, etc., then I can understand how a request like that could be taken poorly by the mother.
Still, posting it on social media is Karen-like behaviour.
“Can you describe the nature of the unrealness of these bills, as its own thing and not as the absence of something else?”
Just thought the dissection of that particular “weasel word” might help someone out there at some point.
“Brandy made in Germany isn’t “real” cognac. The nature of the unrealness is that it was made in Germany and not the cognac region of France.”
You may disagree but my point here is, right or wrong, you can always describe the nature of the unrealness, unless its being used as a cheap, underhanded rhetorical device.
I’m guessing the kids comment was about pets. ‘No real bills’ I’m guessing she still lives at home and pays some token amount towards rent/utilities.
We can speculate all we like, but I could see this going either way, and I’d be frustrated if my 24 year old couldn’t support themselves too.
i feel like if he’s frustrated about his kid and she only has pets he’d just say no kids. but people are weird with animals so who knows.
I mean she’s a teacher. A very hard job with lots of unpaid work that often offers downright sad wages.
Being unable to support oneself despite a full-time job is a more and more common thing in our world.
My cousin is a coparent in a polycule of 3, but she is not the biological parent of their children, she is the default parent though, as she is a SAHM and the other parents work. They’ve been together for 23 years.
Half my family acts like she doesn’t have any children, and that she’s some sad single live in nanny. They will ask her how her “room mates and their kids” are going, even if the “room mate” is standing next to her with his hand on her arse and has just finished telling a story about how in love they are.
My dad is also thinks I have “no real bills” because I don’t have a mortgage. He says rent isn’t a real bill because it’s not like the bank will take my house if I don’t pay. History opinion on evictions is “that not the same, because you can get a new place to rent that night, you can’t buy a new house in a day”
My rent is 6x more than his mortgage and I don’t know anyone who could get approved for a rental the same day they get evicted for not paying rent, but sure dad, I’m rolling in expendable income over here.
Some families are weird about denying how their relatives live.
But it could also be that she calls her cat “her baby” and lives at home with only personal bills.
Am I the only one who lives with their parent and helps paying bills? I am asking, because some people seem to be surprised that my father forces me to pay for the living in his house, but the truth is I don’t mind that, and I’d rather not be a freeloader.
I mean, if you’re an adult with an income and living with anyone else (parents, roommate, etc.), you really should be helping with the upkeep of the place and bills. As well as paying for your own food, phone bill, etc.
“Forcing you to pay” sounds harsh without context. You’d have to pay rent to live anywhere else, right? Perhaps, “expected to pay” seems more logical… assuming you’re an adult with an income.
If your parents want you to pay rent, while at the same time complaining that you still live with them(which is often the situation), they can charitably be called dumbfucks.
I really subscribe to the idea of the kid helping on bills + a little extra and the parent saving as much as they financially can of that into an account and giving it to their kid as a moving away gift.
But yes, I think you are more talking about having the kid pay market price to live at home which is fucked.
I understand the need to privacy as people get older, but if my kids want to stay with me for a long period of their life, I will be pleased to have them with me as long as they like.
It’s situational, but you’re not the only one.
I lived with my dad for many years because he slowly lost the ability to take care of himself. My brother and I were there to handle whatever he needed and since I was working full time, I’d cover bills when it was required, either because he forgot or because he was struggling.
We eventually made the decision to have him moved to a care facility where he could get the care he needed, and far better care than we could hope to provide. He’s passed on now, but it happens. That was a crazy time in my life. Now I live independently.
For the record, I’m over 40 now, and I’m the youngest of his children. He died a few years back at this point.
I think It is fair that the members of a family, that are a community living together or not, all share in the burdens of life so it is easier for everyone. But if the parents are like forcing you to pay rent, then I would just live somewhere else.
Put in another way. It is fine if you have an adult children to say “hey, help out anyway you can so it is easier to everyone” and if they cannot figure out how to do that or they are like stuck and not progressing in life then instead of an ultimatum of “pay rent” better is a “I think you need the experience of living on your own”. Again I am all for money staying in the family and much prefer that or even better they saving money to buy a place than paying rent to some shitty landlord. But anyway.
Setting an appropriate amount of contribution is between you and your dad. There is no wrong way except if a child truly needs a roof to sleep under and they aren’t a complete fuck up.
Even complete fuck ups need a roof
But at some point, it doesn’t necessarily mean your roof. Especially if the fuck ups damage property or other persons.
This pervasive selfishness in older generations sickens and astounds me.
Imagine not wanting to give your kids everything.
I would forego food if I had to in order to help my kids see better.
This is a generational problem. It exists across all generations. Looks more like narcissism
Did you mean “isn’t a generational problem?”
The rest of the comment makes more sense to me that way, but as is written, I’m not certain what you are trying to say.
Indeed, I did.
She isn’t going blind. Lol.
She just doesn’t want to wear contacts or glasses anymore.
I would forego food to make sure my kids had glasses or contacts, sure.
I would not forego food so they could have elective surgery.
Would you forego getting a 3rd car or building an addition on your home or half of your yearly retirement investment so your kid wouldn’t have to spend too much money every few years on glasses?
That is the biggest chance of what actually would be the situation.
An elective surgery you call it, an investment in their vision, I call it. Not everyone has vision as part of their insurance, and contacts/glasses/exams can get expensive without (or even with, depending on the policy). Viewed in that way, LASIK can definitely be seen as an investment.
I mean, lasik comes with issues down the road if you go for the cheaper procedures, and even the good ones if you have complications.
If the question is money, adding risk is often not the wisest of decisions…
The same can be said for glasses and contacts too. So you have a pay once and done, or a pay forever with the same potential issues. Very few people’s vision ever get better from continual glass contact use, but it can get better permanently from lasik.
It’s not like she’s asking for breast implants or liposuction(or something else that is not reconstructive in nature). It’s lasik, and it’ll help her quality of life, no more worrying about breaking her glasses or losing contacts.
We dont know if she works in special ed where getting hit in the face could be a normal occurance for her. Maybe she struggles with contacts. Either way there are a lot of reasons for someone to want to go that route.
Also, comparing lasik to something like nonreconstructive cosmetic surgery is disingenuous. One is completely for aesthetics, the other affects function.
Pay once or pay multiple times a year? LASIK pays for itself, you’ll always be buying glasses and contacts.
LASIK isn’t some great cure. It has potential side effects and you can end up seeing worse than you did before.
I know I’m just one person, but it was one of the best decisions I ever made. I was almost legally blind without glasses/contacts, and just the stress of making sure my glasses prescription was up to date once I switched to contacts, making sure I packed glasses, contacts, extra contacts, solution, etc, for a trip, and losing 1 contact while at the store or something was instantly erased.
I could read the street signs on the highway on the way home from the surgery. I hadn’t been able to do that unaided since I was probably 10.
Do I need readers now that I’m older? Yep, just like they told me I would because everyone does because it’s a different issue that comes with aging. I wish they had a similar treatment for Presbyopia!!!
Sure, everyone’s experience is different, but it almost was akin to a miracle for me. Life changing for sure.
And on the other side of the spectrum my friend was at -10, got it done and has been complaining for the past 15 years or more. He can barely drive at night now and it hasn’t fixed all his issues so he still needs glasses and has needed them since the operation (just not as much for his myopia) so he’s not saving any money
I’m not doubting at all that there are cases like this and I’m terribly sorry for your friend. I only wanted to present a different perspective for those considering having the procedure. It’s definitely not a decision that should be made lightly.
mate at -10 he wasn’t doing great before he had lasik either.
Was 100% functional with glasses now not functional at night with or without glasses, dry eyes, still needs glasses
Every procedure has that risk, even a routine vaccination or stitches, strange reason to pay for glasses and contacts forever.
There are people who legitimately can’t get the surgery, but that’s obviously not who’s being discussed here.
What’s the ratio on people being worse of for vision after? Cant make a claim like that and not provide some data.
Glasses and contacts also don’t fix the issue and can lead to worse vision too, so arguably that’s non-factor in a discussion like this anyways.
No, what you are comparing to is a one in a million. Lasik has a rather large complication rate with doctors lying about it and using “satisfaction rate” instead of actually counting complications. Basically people think “it’s worth it to have these problems”. But issues like dry eye, halos, glare, shitty night vision are extremely common. They’ll tell you shit like “serious complications are at 1%” when what they mean is 1% go basically blind - or unable to do daily activities like driving at night.
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/lasik/lasik-quality-life-collaboration-project
46% of participants who didn’t have visual problems before lasik, said they have at least one 3 months after the surgery. 30% had dry eye issues. Those aren’t vaccine numbers.
with doctors lying about it
The last person I spoke with who used those words was trying to convince me she could cure cancer with electricity.
To be fair, using enough electricity will cure everything. Technically.
You do need electricity to run the machines.
In October 2009, the FDA, the National Eye Institute (NEI), and the Department of Defense (DoD) launched the LASIK Quality of Life Collaboration Project (LQOLCP) to better understand the potential risk of severe problems that can result from LASIK. The project’s goal was to develop a tool for determining the percent of patients who develop difficulties performing usual activities following LASIK, and to identify predictors for those patients.
The technology is leaps and bounds better than it was 15 years ago, got anything modern?
And the risk of your eyes getting worse with glasses and contacts is worse than that, your eyes can’t get better without mechanical intervention, and glasses WILL deteriorate your vision further. It’s 100% with glasses and contacts.
glasses WILL deteriorate your vision further. It’s 100% with glasses and contacts.
Do you have anything to share on this? I am asking because I remember I specifically asked my eye doctor this question, and he said no. (I asked something like if there is any downside in wearing glasses always vs only when needed e.g., reading, watching TV etc.).
I am also wearing the same glasses for almost 13 years now.
Three months after surgery is too early for such a conclusion. It is expected that you still have dry eyes and stuff like that for a larger period of time, around 6 months or so with daily eye drops. Your vision post surgery is also not 100% improved, and gets better for up to a year after, while your eyes and brain adjust.
Source: my wife had it. Certainly worth it. Your link is not very relevant.
LASIK procedures are “permanent”, at best, till the patient’s mid-40s. one source.
Pay once or pay multiple times a year?
no glasses wearers pay “multiple times a year” for new spectacles and lenses. the frequency does go up to once in two years or once a year after the mid-40s because of presbyopia, but that expense would be incurred anyway whether one gets a LASIK procedure done or not.
Lasik generally comes with a 20 year warranty. Glasses and contacts come with none. Do you work for a pharmaceutical company? You certainly seem to be shilling temporary treatments rather than even semi permanent cures.
I’m also in my 40s and would rather pay for a solution that will last till my 60s rather than get glasses every year for 20 years. Lasik is just cheaper in the long run, and the fact that you call it elective would be hilarious, if you weren’t being so conservative.
Embrace modern medicine.
The 20 year warranty on Lasik doesn’t guarantee a lifetime of normal vision. The surgery can neither correct nor prevent presbyopia, the most common form of age-related far-sightedness. This reduction in vision is caused by a hardening and loss of flexibility in the lens as well as a weakening of the muscles used for focusing.
The link buddy shared above that started this entire discussion says lasik is a solution to presbyopia….
If you are an older adult considering LASIK, you might choose to have monovision to maintain your ability to see objects close up. With monovision, one eye is corrected for distant vision, and the other eye is corrected for near vision. Not everyone is able to adjust to or tolerate monovision. It’s best to do a trial with contact lenses before having a permanent surgical procedure.
Why are you saying the exact opposite of what was linked? Got a source to back this claim up?
From your own link?
LASIK eye surgery may mean no more corrective lenses. But it’s not right for everybody. Learn whether you’re a good candidate and what to consider as you weigh your decision.
And maybe read the information on the over 40, it says laser is a solution to that, it says nothing about it still happening with laser, I think you are conflating issues.
do take the time to read the full article. particularly the section titled “LASIK vs. Reading Glasses”.
separately, my cohorts and I are in the mid-40s and have undergone LASIK evaluation. the unanimous consensus given each of us is that we will have to undergo the procedure again and again as our eyes age. that we will have to fall back on glasses.
i speak from personal experience on this topic.
Yes there is people for who it can’t permanently fix their vision, that doesn’t mean it’s not possible for others dude.
Presbyopia is the age-related hardening of the lens and weakening of the muscles used for focusing. The process is progressive and irreversible. Lasik is not a good option for people with presbyopia and any surgeon recommending it is not acting in your best interest as a patient. You should probably seek a second opinion!
Really it’s the upfront cost. Over the last 20 years I can say confidently that I have not spent more on corrective lenses than I would have on LASIK, but I’m getting close. I had it priced out last year and it’s about $4500 for the procedure. I’m at a point in my life where I would feel comfortable taking on those payments now. I know growing up there was zero chance my parents could have made it happen for me, it we would have all been starving.
I kept putting it off… I wanted it when I was 20 but couldn’t afford it. I still wanted it at 30, but didn’t want to spend the money. At 40 I finally had more than enough in my HSA to cover my annual deductable, so I scheduled it. And I’ve LOVED it! However, around 45 I noticed that my near sight isn’t as good as it has been. Now at 48 I’m realizing that I’ll soon need reading glasses.
I still think it was worth it… but I REALLY wish I had done it in my 20s so I could have enjoyed going glasses free for all those years.
It’s on my shortlist of things to do and has always been a goal since my teenage years. I’m tired of dealing with lenses.
I mean, that’s a pretty good run. I’ve never had to wear glasses but now at 41 I need readers when my eyes are tired, and when they’re not they’re working harder for clarity than they ever had to before. I said something to my dad about it a couple years ago as I was first noticing the change and he said, “How old are you? Ah yeah, that’s about the age.” (Yes my dad had to check how old I was. 🙄)
Dirty commie kid, he should pay for food/shelter/happiness with labor /s
