At least you know you’ve earned yours Kev 
1 Like
Had both my eyes done (separately) via NHS farmed out to SpaMedica. Was offered corrective lenses but decided that not worth it as I still only need readers. No idea if this was correct decision. Find the main benefit is in colour perception, e.g. can see difference between blacks that are very dark brown, and blacks that are very dark blue. Good luck either way.
For once on here, veils have actually been lifted.
2 Likes
Not really the same. There’s a lot more surgery for an insert than for a denture I think. But in the case of cataract lenses I believe the surgical element is essentially identical. The NHS will pay for it if the surgeon slips a basic lens in but they won’t pay for it if she slips a fancy lens in, even though the patient has paid separately for the lens. It beats me why, and she says it beats her too.
Incidentally I don’t know if this rule applies to the whole NHS or just to my local wing (?) of it, postcode-lottery stylee.
Again I don’t know for sure, but I believe not. The basic lens isn’t too pricey but fancy lenses can cost of order a thousand pounds each. This guy claims that the actual cost of the lens itself accounts for at least a third of his £4.5k fee.
Browner and bluer blacks. Unfortunately the other half did not comment from the kitchen.
3 Likes
Well, he would say that wouldn’t he.
Looks like I am covered for private cataract surgery under work contributory health scheme.
(I have been paying in for 9 years without a claim)
Will have to investigate what sort of cover and if I can get corrective lenses included or if it is possible to pay the supplement.
As I understand it the corrective lenses come in lots of different types. The one recommended to me simply gives me ‘extended depth of field’.
There are even fancier ones which claim to be able to correct the need for reading glasses too - so patients can be ‘spectacles free’ after the procedure. My consultant told me that these aren’t recommended for diabetics though. She skirted round the detail but basically the problem is that diabetics are at risk of retinal haemorrhages which can leave small blind spots on the retina. The more complex multifocal lenses somehow rely on having a big enough fully-functional area of retina for them to make distinct sharp images for the different object distances, then somehow the brain learns to sort out the result. If a diabetic should lose some part of the retina then the lens will have a region of object distances over which it will no longer work. So these types of lenses are out for me. But to be honest I’m fine with reading glasses anyway so I didn’t push it.
1 Like
I forgot to say that I have lost vision in my left eye owing to an ischemic event. Couple that with (at the time) type 2 diabetes and caution seemed the watchword. One is better off without the cataracts. Any further enhancements are a bonus that need to be decided on an individual basis. Sorry not to be more helpful.
2 Likes
I would be happy to get rid of glasses for driving, playing golf, doing anything outside in the rain to be honest. Happy with readers for anything closer than arms length.
I am type 2 Diabetic so will certainly follow advice but not looking for a spectacle free solution.
The point i was trying to make is that its about cheapest and barely adequate versus something that makes life that little bit more pleasurable. The NHS on many procedures aspires to adequacy, personally I would like to see more from them.
1 Like
It is not about barely adequate, it is about exactly the same operation with the same stuff by the same NHS trained surgeons which the the NHS provide free and the private sector charge about £3k
A mate who has never worn glasses in his life had cataract operations on the NHS and still doesn’t need glasses, apart from readers which he would have needed anyway as he got older.
Not really sure what more you could expect from the NHS
If you want more than is clinically required then you pay for it, exactly as you do with glasses
We’re already paying for it through taxes because of the subsidies you give them you complete bellend, except at the moment those subsidies are being used to guarantee dividends for the shareholders
“They don’t have a plan to pay for the bill attached to their rail nationalisation,” he said. “Without a plan to pay for this, it means one thing: taxes will rise on hard working people.”
1 Like
Here I go again …
Vodafone Pensions are due one.
Claire worked for VF for long enough that most of her pension contributions were made under the original Defined Benefits scheme, now administered by Vodafone Group Pensions who are part of the insurance giant WTW. They live in a PO Box in Redhill. VF eventually swapped to a Defined Contributions scheme which is now called LifeSight. Unsurprisingly perhaps, given how very closely interlinked these two businesses must be, LifeSight are also part of WTW in Redhill, cooped up in a different PO Box.
In the few months before she died Claire put some effort, when that was a real effort, into activating her pension. She did this in part, at least, to minimise the trouble for me when it came to claiming the spouse’s pension once she would be gone. She was pleased and proud of having managed it. I thanked my lucky stars.
After she died I did have to fill in a long and detailed form. I had to prove that she was gone and that I was who I said I was and that I was also her beneficiary and that there weren’t any others. This included digging out and sending them some unexpected documents (my original birth certificate, for example, and the complete original of Claire’s ‘wet-ink signed’ will, though they would accept an electronic scan of that). But there you go. Paperwork is paperwork. I accept it had to be done.
A couple of days ago a fat envelope arrived here asking Claire to read all 86 enclosed pages and tell them how she would like to take her Vodafone pension when she turns 65 in November. I phoned the helpline and told them that she died in January and that they were already paying her pension and were about, I hoped, to start paying me.
It turns out that she had been dealing with Vodafone Group Pensions and that they were the ones I’d contacted to let them know when she died and to whom I’d sent all the paperwork. Unbelievably they hadn’t told LifeSight or indicated to me that I might have to. So the recent fat envelope was from LifeSight. They didn’t know Claire had died.
They were apologetic on the phone, but late yesterday they e-mailed me a 19-page form, near identical to the previous one asking me to prove all the stuff I spent February proving to Vodafone Group Pensions, and asking me to send in all the same supporting certificates, will, etc, etc. Again.
I will get back to them this morning. I will be polite. But I won’t be in a good mood. Even the government can manage ‘Tell Us Once’.
6 Likes
What a ball ache for you to have to go through Graeme, I feel for you.
I’m sure you will impart your unhappiness about their incompetence in a compelling manner!
Punch to the cock of Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd who today wrote to me demanding £170 for overstaying at Shell Kings Lynn, on… 8th January 2021 
Real or scam?
They are the ones on the telly!
Look forward to seeing you on a future screening of ‘Can’t Pay? We’ll take It Away’ 
1 Like
God strewth, what a nightmare for you Graeme. I have a feeling though that it will be quicker for you to resend everything to LifeSight than rely on Vodafone pensions to do that for you. At least you will know it’s done. As for a complaint, a letter to the Vodafone CEO is more likely to see action taken, although I do understand the need to vent at the idiots.
As a civil debt collection or as a Court order. If the former then spend ages ignoring it, then deny it and ask to see proof, then deny it again etc… If the latter, probably fucked.