What must Change?

Alan Said:

The public must command the care of an individual certified to perform those services by a professional or recognized organization that is industry, national, or international.

In the background the OAA, NAO, and worthy state and regional organizations move towards legislative change with academic support.

I can think of nothing I would enjoy more than to see an ordinary customer say to his own doctor, "I heard on TV that I should be asking for a certified optician here in your optical room. So, where is he/she?" And, let the sucker talk his way out of that. He would have no choice but to come up with a lot of bull. Sooner or later, that doctor will be forced to have a better qualified person. Who won't be available at slave wages.

There's a lot more to that than "meets the eye." Just you watch and see . . . I pray that we can get the support needed at the OAA and hopefully when the day comes . . . IOC.

This is a nice statement but it does not go far enough. What do we have to do to convince the public that they have the right and obligation to ask for a certified or state licensed person to fulfill there eyeglass prescription needs?:rolleyes:

Rfish777, you could start by adding your opinions and ideas to the OC forum. I beleive you were invited to participate. Did you decline? Or am I mis-informed.

Quote:

---

This is a nice statement but it does not go far enough. What do we have to do to convince the public that they have the right and obligation to ask for a certified or state licensed person to fulfill there eyeglass prescription needs?

---

Hey...waddya mean? Last time I opened my big mouth my head was dislocated! John's right. Join IOC....

I've got a great set of Ginsu knives if you join.
(JRS . . . Help me here...can't get rid of the knives!)

rfish777:

You should join the IOC. You have many great ideas to contribute and we all want you there!

I will try an get there but Sunday is not a good day for me. SORRY

Alan I did not mean any disrepect in any way. I just thought you did not take your premise far enough. A lot of people out on the board listen and read your thoughts. They maybe controversial and they maybe inane but people including myself like to see and hear what you have to say. That is why I brought up the subject
that you initially wrote regarding your post. There are a number of people myself included that cannot make the Sunday get togethers and we just want to be brought up to date. If you would rather keep it to a select few that's fine with me, I just assumed this way everybody could add there two cents. If you would rahter keep it to the Sunday meetings then I will close this thread.
:eek:

Rfish777,

I won't try and answer for Alan, but I would like to finish up on a few pieces I sorta started.

We do not meet on Sunday's anymore. The majority of us found it difficult as well. We did try some early morning Wednesday meets though.
We do try and post some thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc. on the OC forum thread. And from previous posts of yours, I thought you were invited to join in as well. We (OC group) decided not to post all the considerations for the IOC on public forums. It causes (caused) considerable 'bashing' back-n-forth and the focus of those threads got lost. So we decided to get our act together before public declarations.

At leasts that's how I remember the decision - you others from the group bail me out, correct me, or add to it - so Rfish777 gets a better feel for this.

I don't know why you're apologizing.
There wasn't anything you've said that warrants it and I, for one, am no judge of offensive statements. And, I detected none.

You do realize there is a bunch of us who agree you have a lot to offer. And, the invitation remains open. We are constantly adjusting schedules and whatever to fit. IOC is predominantly a cyberorganization going through a very unique developmental curve.

Actually, I thank you for your comment regarding what I said. It's terrific to find someone who thinks it needs to go further. I'll hand you the baton and let you take it around the track on a heart beat. We need partners.

Alan thank you
The Fish man:bbg:

Quote:

---

This is a nice statement but it does not go far enough. What do we have to do to convince the public that they have the right and obligation to ask for a certified or state licensed person to fulfill there eyeglass prescription needs?

---

We know that we do have certain criteria for certified, advanced certified, educated and state licensed opticians. We have to let the public know that people meeting that criteria exist. We need the consumer to want to do what you said and ask for a qualified optician no matter who's office they patronize and if such a person is not employed there they need to demand that a qualified person fit eyewear.

It is the "how" part that we are working on right now. We know that there are certain types of media that can use, now how do we get it done?

rfish, does this mean you are going to join us and check out the IOC forums, I hope? :D

Actually, the person responsible for the situation is the eye doctor. They have to meet high educational standards, pass state licensing boards, run the "business" side of eye doctoring. If you've ever seen an ophthalmic assistants text book, it has one(1) very small chapter regarding the fitting and fabrication of eyewear, and it's pretty mundane. And consider that the text is developed by the Ophthalmology academy for tech training. So, they really believe there isn't very much to being an optician. And since the government chooses to let just about any one fill the doctor's prescription, that must mean that it's no big deal. Different set of criteria when it comes to hair dressers/barbers, who have to go through formal training and licensing examinations. From the publics point of view, it boils down to "do you offer one-hour service?" or "are you having a buy one, get one free sale?" And the 3rd party insurance folks are killing us by skimming our industries profits as a "benefit" to our clientele. In a "free market", eyecare would be of generally better quality and be much more competitive. But give different segments monopolys, and it creates lower standards of care and service and higher prices. It would normally be the eyedoctor's responsibility to advice his "patient" of the serious buyer beware maket, but they're dispensing too aren't they? And do they support higher opticianry standards for the marketplace? why should they? they are profiting by the low standards.

Al said:
From the publics point of view, it boils down to "do you offer one-hour service?" or "are you having a buy one, get one free sale?" And the 3rd party insurance folks are killing us by skimming our industries profits as a "benefit" to our clientele. In a "free market", eyecare would be of generally better quality and be much more competitive. But give different segments monopolys, and it creates lower standards of care and service and higher prices. It would normally be the eyedoctor's responsibility to advice his "patient" of the serious buyer beware maket, but they're dispensing too aren't they? And do they support higher opticianry standards for the marketplace? why should they? they are profiting by the low standards.
Al I agree with your comments. But in New York at least they do recoginize our higher standards. But you have places offering buy any three for $99 so when I offer a quality product for more it looks like to the public we are price gouging. Again who's fault, it's the greed on the part of major corporations who don't give a damn as long as they get there botton line met. If we can take our message directly to the pubic we might have a chance to change public perception on what a professional optician is and what he or she does and how important they are in the Optical industry. We can only hope.
:bbg: