If your cornea is naturally very thin, you're ineligible for LASIK because the whole point is to ablate away part of the cornea. I had IOL surgery instead, which is like an implanted contact lens. The trouble with IOL surgery is that there's a 1% chance you'll get a cataract from the lens accidentally rubbing against your natural lens. This ended up happening to me in one eye 12 months after surgery. To their credit, the clinic where I had it done got me back in and gave me a complete lens replacement in that eye at no charge.
Now, a post-cataract-surgery eye is not as good as a normal eye. I would need glasses again were it not for the fact that my other eye is working perfectly with the IOL. So I have one 20/10 eye and one 20/80 eye, but to be honest it's not something I actually notice day to day; the visual cortex sorts it out for you. I do use reading glasses for long computer sessions.
If I had it to do again, I would still do it, because for me life with glasses and contacts was full of daily annoyances and constraints that I no longer have to put up with. Even if I develop presbyopia, my vision will never again be anywhere near as horrendous as it was before surgery. I had a diopter around -8, plus astigmatism. The convenience of life without glasses is worth the hassle of having one post-cataract eye.
Also, one option people often don't think to explore is that you can have _just your astigmatism_ corrected in an outpatient procedure. This procedure is quick and easy and it allows you to use cheaper glasses and contacts (no more "toric" contacts).
When I pointed this out to the other workers they laughted and said their jobs were safe for the rest of their lives.
Funny that is what I was told when I worked at GM on the truck line, now those jobs are gone. Not to another country, the robots replace the humans.
And if fast food workers succeed in asking for a living wage, I expect that their robot replacements will arrive faster.
it's uncommon to find cereals with less than 150 calories per 1 oz serving.
Not sure how your math works. At 4 calories per gram for carbs and protein, a 1 oz / 28 gram serving is ~110 calories. It's true for Count Chocula and for Special K both. You can't reach 150 calories unless the cereal contains 8 grams of fat, which is a pretty greasy cereal. More likely you're including the milk in your numbers.
I agree that basic cable TV can be a reasonable expense, compared to other entertainment options. Taking a family of four to one movie per month can cost $40, depending on the details. At the same time, the extended packages with the premium sports channels etc. can approach $150/month, at which point it is clearly a luxury.
But if you can feed a family of four on non-organic food for $4800/year, that's 662 hours at minimum wage, or 13 hours/week. I don't take taxes out of that hourly wage, because a family of four that earns minimum wage qualifies for EITC rather than paying federal income taxes.
I would like to know if anyone is aware of a good training/education program (or book) to help folks understand how to cook healthy inexpensive meals that are not too complex (time-consuming) and decently flavorful. I think that would help bridge the gap, and I'd gladly get involved with such a program as my schedule allows.
The author Michael Pollan has a simple set of 3 rules for managing your nutrition: 1. Eat food*; 2. Not too much; 3. Mostly plants.
* What he means by this is "real" food, rather than the "edible food-like substances" that constitute the bulk of the American diet. He has a simple rule for identifying real food: If you've ever seen it advertised on TV, it's probably not real food.
Since I don't watch TV, how do I know what is advertised on TV versus what is "real food"?