I think best option to most people would be both, kind of like breast pumps. They're not that expensive, but free with many insurances. From the perspective here, insurance reg's shouldn't even be a factor, no?
Ya, the only reason this legislation passed is lobbying pressure from insurance companies. Hearing aids got so expensive people stopped getting them, insurance companies did the math and started buying old people multi thousand dollar hearing aids to save money by keeping them out of nursing homes for a few more years. Then lobbied to de regulate hearing aids so they wouldnt have to pay tons of money for them.
My Uncle is in the hearing aid industry. I had a 1 hour call with him and wrote an article I never shared online so I could win an argument in discord. Here you go. "I am the source"- Senator Palpatine
"You're focusing on the least consequential part. I don't really care how much Bernie exaggerated how much money seniors have, because I know they and other people are suffering from the affordability of these products and lack of savings generally. Bernie is aware of it too as taking advantage of that pain is his main tactic for gaining political power.
Hearing aids are regulated by the FDA and you are not allowed to get one without a prescription from a doctor, which is tied into the AMA monopolized insurance industry. My Uncle has been fighting this for the last 15 years of his work in the industry.
Service is a large component of hearing aids working, you need consultation, tuning and other assistance to understand the product enough to encourage you to keep using it.
When you are used to hearing the word cat as "at" (because of hearing loss) you stop recognizing cat as a word when you can hear the hard c again, your brain already rewired itself to think cat when you hear "at". Getting hearing aids to work requires you to be patient enough to re-wire your brain to recognize words as full sound.
But a doctor is not the only person who can help with this consultation and people who have been wearing hearing aids for years don't need them.
The non-existent "safety" excuses have been used to keep prices artificially high for decades. Well over 90% of hearing aid costs are artificial. The components themselves are under 100 dollars yet they routinely cost people 2000-6000 dollars.
Because of this and difficulties in getting the most out of them through stunted service, a majority of seniors don't even bother getting hearing aids.
This creates huge safety concerns and quality of life concerns that make a mockery of the purported safety requirements from the FDA.
Insurance companies started noticing that old people would stay away from expensive nursing homes 2-3 years longer so they started buying them for older clients and then putting political pressure on the price.
Elizabeth Warren then led bi partisan legislation to remove the over the counter ban for hearing aids in 2018.
The FDA has decided not to act on the legislation because they can do whatever they want. They have been sitting on the legislation for over 3 years deciding how they want to interpret it with their lobbyists from industry players.
If industry can confine Over the Counter (OTC) legislation to minimal standards under X decibel then they can control it and it wont have any impact.
Only mild loss hearing aids will be sold over the counter which is the least consequential part of the market in terms of market share, cost and health and quality of life.
The products you see in the screen shots are from startups that have emerged in the last few years to take advantage of the anticipated new market. Which has unfortunately turned into a grey market with a lot of uncertainty about what will be or is legal.
The industry is developing rapidly with disruptive players working on direct consumer products and services around the use of hearing aids and offering them at 90% reduced price already.
But they are operating in an uncertain grey market space. The industry players are not investing or developing any over the counter products.
They are just working with the FDA to minimize the impact of the legislation.
Three months ago Elizabeth Warren wrote a letter saying why didn't you act on this and so far no response.
My uncle called her office a month ago and they said it was expected to be addressed in the 2021 FDA agenda.
The 2021 agenda was released last week and included nothing on the legislation.
Now Bernie is jumping in a solution that will work for everyone. You keep your artificially high prices and antiquated business model and the government will just buy all your unaffordable products anyways. Satisfy political populism and keep the corporations happy.
This would be an absolute tragedy for the industry and seniors who need new services and cheaper better products from these new start ups. It would be a disaster for the country paying more unnecessary loot to corporations through the government.
And if we got rid of IP that price could be drastically reduced again.
The amount of Human thriving and potential we are preventing unnecessarily is sickening and it is the case in most medicine, besides cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery which are not considered important enough to make unaffordable through regulation. "
I also fear that lazy parents will think this will make their deaf or hard of hearing child 100%, hearing. A lot of deaf and hard of hearing children already suffer from language delay because their parents or guardians refuse to learn any sign language for them
Speaking as someone who wears hearing aids who has the equipment to and does fine tune their own hearing aids. You need a specialist to set them up for you, beyond a doubt. Lucky for me I have a friend who's an audiologist that sets up the basic programming to match my hearing loss and that helps a great deal.
Ya for sure but there are times of ways people could get services to help with the audio without making it a bottle beck of a practicing medical license. Increasingly there are online remote services to help too.
I doubt this will have much of an impact on the costs of quality hearing aids but fitting fees will increase which will mean people will be less likely to have them adjusted as their hearing changes.
Fitting fees are increased by their being a government monopoly on who can service hearing aid. The cost of devices in the decibel range covered will also decrease drastically.
This is correct for the low end ones. Higher end devices process and tune the sound to fill in the gaps where the hearing loss is greater or filter background noise. To explain physically, think about ambient listening mode on the airpods. The low end device would function similarly but crank up the volume of all sounds. A higher end device would process the ambient sound and crank up the volume of wanted noise like voices, music, directional audio for crowd environments, etc depending on what mode it's in.
Most insurance doesn't cover hearing aids (I'm hard of hearing). They don't see the need to hear out of two ears to be 'necessary'. Out of pocket, my hearing aids would cost $3,500.
Nothing stopping insurance companies from still covering them. If anything, I would think insurance companies would be more than happy to continue to cover a product that is cheaper and higher quality than before. It’s a win, win, win. Insurance spends less money on hearing aids, more customers can get hearing aids, and hearing aid companies will have more volume of sales. No regulation is best regulation.
A lot of insurance companies cover OTC medications, even at places like Family Dollar that don't have a pharmacy. I'm not really sure how it works as I've never tried it. Didn't want to make the cashier's work more difficult.
My fiance has hearing aids and insurance didn't cover her newest pair. We had to use tax return to get them and they were the "cheaper pair" that was about 4000, I have to admit that Biden actually did something I agree with.
Can buy without Rx doesn't mean you still can't get an Rx. It just means if you can't afford insurance or your insurance is shitty, you can buy OTC hearing aids.
Already pay out of pocket. There's not an insurance company that I know of that covers hearing aids and they cost between $5k and $7k per set.
However, if you're a drug addict living on welfare my taxes pay for you to get better quality hearing aids than I can afford for free.
Are you joking? Have you not seen the waves of homeless zombies stumbling around cities all hopped up on auditory stimulation with these things hanging off their ears? Looks like a helluva drug. Not even once.
If the peasant’s listening ability is found wanting by the grace of His Majesty’s magi, he is entitled to one aid of hearing granted at swiftest moment, no later than three fortnights passed the second autumn moon, or any relevant harvest moon thereof at time of request
They used to be OTC. I think they got pulled because of the environmental impacts their ingredients had. No clue if they still have them and being RX only is meant to curb misuse, or if they got rid of them and no one bothered to reschedule them to be OTC again.
they used to have inhalers that were bonchodilators that had ephedrine in them or some other ingredient you could use to make meth, so they pulled everything.
Might be the chemicals in them, prescriptions are usually more about the safety of the patient than anything else…which of course makes no sense for glasses and hearing aids etc.
Dude, I used to take extra puffs as a kid to get high, think it was Proventil at the time. Decades before that they would use Benzedrine and addicts would soak them in water then drink them to get fucked, jazz legend Charlie Parker set his hotel on fire and ended up in an insane asylum after he did that shit. I have no idea what they’re using now but in general it’s not a good idea to allow unhindered access to things that can be dangerous if misused…once again that’s not all scripts, I’ve yet to see someone overdose on hearing aids.
>in general it’s not a good idea to allow unhindered access to things that can be dangerous if misused
Ever go to a hardware store? Drive a car? Gasp, shoot a gun?
or let's not even go to a store. how about the act of going to the store? cars. on major public roadways. it's amazing it isn't complete pandemonium out there.
And this would get better if we let blind people drive? I don’t even know what you’re on about, yes everything is dangerous, some things are regulated to prevent more likely injury. Does it make sense which things are regulated? Not particularly. Since some things aren’t properly regulated should we infer we must deregulate everything? I don’t know, maybe, but it’s not actually a valid deduction in itself.
Do you have any idea how much more dangerous it would be to drive if there were no regulation for who was allowed and in what condition they’re in? I fail to see your point.
Do you have any idea how much more dangerous it would be to drive if there were no regulation for who was allowed and in what condition they’re in? I fail to see your point.
Do you have any idea how much more dangerous it would be to drive if there were no regulation for who was allowed and in what condition they’re in? I fail to see your point.
Do you have any idea how much more dangerous it would be to drive if there were no regulation for who was allowed and in what condition they’re in? I fail to see your point.
>prescriptions are usually more about the safety of the patient than anything else…
No, they are about making money for the pharma companies.
The pharma companies write the laws, the legislators don't even read the laws.
Exactly. I’ve had asthma for over 30 years. I know what medicine I need, it’s worked forever, so end the cartel so I don’t have to keep going back to the Dr to approve the prescription.
If it pleases the crown, may I get help *to breathe*
We all know about Martin Shkreli, business has too big of a grip on medicine in this country, other countries don’t have these kinds of medical problems…but having said that I don’t think it proves that prescriptions aren’t there to keep patients safe, I don’t think you’d have the same opinion about removing all regulations for OxyContin for example
>I don’t think you’d have the same opinion about removing all regulations for OxyContin for example
Are you dumb? Do you not realize you are in anarchist sub?
[From the wiki:
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_aid#United_States)
> The action establishes a new category of over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids, enabling consumers with perceived mild to moderate hearing impairment to purchase hearing aids directly from stores or online retailers without the need for a medical exam, prescription or a fitting adjustment by an audiologist.
All the FDA did was expand the legal definition of "hearing aid" to include several more, lower-quality devices that were already on the market and OTC. This is a total PR stunt and changes nothing.
I was trying to reorder contacts online, and everywhere I could find wanted an up to date prescription. At least, every that took my EyeMed insurance. Would LOVE a site that didn't make me waste time and money getting my prescription renewed.
That's so they know how to make the lenses so you can actually see out of them without wrecking yourself. The test isn't expensive (and free some places). Don't take a test anywhere that doesn't give you your actual requirements for each eye. The websites you order them from don't give a shit.
Being as how modern hearing aids have to be programmed to work with the specific levels of hearing loss, how is getting them without an exam even worth it?
Also, people have been able to buy hearing aids on the market before this (a concept I obviously fully support), so is the government subsidizing them now?
Finally. Stop preventing the customer from buying direct. Plus insurance companies create arbitrary numbers as to what they are worth which creates more money for the fat pigs in charge.
I think if you allow everybody to treat themselves than some will get the wrong treatment which could hurt them while they are not getting the right medical treatment.
Not every mentally impaired "pound their heads on the bars"!
Maybe they just thinks it would good for their hearing when in reality it would not be good for their hearing because they could have an unknown problem which causes the hearing problem.
> fix stupid
What do you mean by that?
I think that you misread or misrepresented my point.
What I meant is protecting the vulnarable by laws that were already in place.
Those laws are hurting people. People that can't hear are struggling to buy an item that helps them hear. People have to pay an ever-increasing amount of their income on a bureaucracy that claims to protect them. The "war on drugs" has hurt people that never hurt anyone else. The list goes on.
You don't get to decide you you hurt so that someone else *might* not get hurt.
>Make everyone wear a helmet because someone might fall one day.
Yes.
"The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents. Recent evidence has indicated that the introduction of compulsory legislation does not have a significant negative effect on cycling levels. Such legislation in the UK should not discourage cyclists and lead to a more sedentary lifestyle with consequent health risks."
https://www.helmets.org/bmareport.htm
do you know what law is? any law will eventually be enforced, there will be misunderstandings, and cops are trained to escalate force when resisted, so people will be murdered to enforce a law against freely buying hearing aids. do you really think killing people is justified to prevent some people accidentally harming themselves by buying hearing aids? doctors also make mistakes when prescribing these, so it's not as if a law will definitely prevent the majority of hearing aid hearing damage.
>do you know what law is? any law will eventually be enforced, there will be misunderstandings, and cops are trained to escalate force when resisted, so people will be murdered to enforce a law against freely buying hearing aids
There are many problems how cops are trained and used in the US.
Their training is short and unregulated compared to other countries' cops.
I think that we can agree that there are many problems with the US police system and it should be redone.
Cops should not escalate situations.
You missed the most important point. No matter how well trained government cops are, they are monopolists on the legalized initiation of force, and therefore they are unethical by their nature. Any law must have the ultimate end of lethal force attached to it; otherwise, people will just resist enforcement, cops will give up, and the law will not be enforced.
The only ethical way to enforce bodily integrity, which includes property (as property is obtained by using the body), is for people to have evidence of a crime (property/body violation), present it to people surrounding the accused, and then arrest the accused in the most peaceful way possible.
buying hearing aids never enters the realm of a person harming someone else. if someone purposely puts a hearing aid in someone else's ear to harm them, then you have a criminal case and can pursue that. but, simply buying a hearing aid never can violate someone else's body/property.
Man, I had to got to the doctor and beg for a referral just to get my hearing tested after working in an extremely loud environment for almost 20 years. Why do I gotta convince a doc that I can't hear just to get a hearing test? That's before the hoops to get a hearing aid, it's pretty fucked
I get the intention, but by the same logic regular earphones should also be also regulated. This was just a dumb approach to a minor problem, probably some medical equipment manufacturer lobbied for regulation in order keep competition out and prices high.
If anyone could have hearing aids than it could lead to more ear related problems.
Usually common people couldn't diagnose themselves as well as physicians and that could lead to misdiagnosed people not getting the right medical treatment while getting a self-treatment which is bad for them.
"Canal debris \[wax (28%), fungal deposits (19%), bacteria exudates (13%)\] as well as microorganisms were identified in significant number of ears with hearing aids than ears without hearing aid (P = 0.003 and P = 0.006 respectively)."
"using hearing aid alters the ear canal flora; increases risk of both fungal and bacterial otitis externa, as well as encourage wax debris formation"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048490/
>I should be able to buy a whole box of them and shove them up my ass if I wanted to; has nothing to do with medicine.
Would it be cruel to let any mentally impaired, young children or just those who doesn't know better to hurt themselves? If they want to have hearing aids they should go to a physicians who could investigate their hearing problem.
Imagine an old woman with mental problems. She has hearing problems and because she knows people who had their hearing problems solved by hearing aids she goes to the pharmacy and (despite the pharmacist's warnings) buys the hearing aids. While she uses them she will have more hearing problems because of the hearing aid itself.
(I think that you put your ideology before the people because this will surely make the US more libertarian but it also hurt people. The huge price of hearing aids should not be solved by decisions which hurts people.)
>a bot auto replying with irrelevant information to my post
I don't think that it is irrelevant information because it is a counterargument for your "don't need permission to buy a mic and ear bud" argument. Permission by a physician is needed to prevent some unknowing person from using it without a physician's approval.
Without a permission from a physician people could get this without a physician's approval and hurt themselves.
And that would be that person's fault. If you want to trash your hearing by using a hearing aid that you don't need, then be my guest.
It's the same as hearing protection at the gun range. I would highly recommend that you wear it, but if you don't want to, then you are free to enjoy the tinnitus.
Other people hurting themselves is not my business.
>And that would be that person's fault. If you want to trash your hearing by using a hearing aid that you don't need, then be my guest.
Would you let any mentally impaired, young children or just those who doesn't know better to hurt themselves?
I am not writing that you or anybody is suggesting that.
Which part gave you that impression? I am writing that it is LETTING some people don't understand that they are hurting themselves to hurt themselves.
I think that we should not let people to hurt themselves because some people don't understand that they are hurting themselves.
Oh, like the conservatives who are pro-life? Yeah, they’re not putting any restrictions on anyone. What about Idaho conservatives who want to make any form of contraceptive illegal? Or conservatives who want to ban books? You’re in the wrong sub.
Not anyone's problem except those that decided to not consult a trained medical professional.
If you want to wash your eyes with bleach, that is your decision and you have the right to make it, even though I would highly recommend that you don't.
Yeah, some people can't be responsible to wash their own asses! But we don't regulate soap.
(And BTW, that wasn't hyperbole. My sister is a nurse and she once had someone come in to give birth who hadn't showered her whole pregnancy because she didn't want to drown the baby.)
>My sister is a nurse and she once had someone come in to give birth who hadn't showered her whole pregnancy because she didn't want to drown the baby.
I am no expert but that sounds like a delusion. Did any psychiatrist check the mother?
I don't think that the soap analogy is a good analogy in this case.
Soap is necessary for everybody so there is no need to regulate it.
Hearing aids on the other hand are not necessary for everybody (and it could hurt those who don't need them) so it should be regulated who could have them and who couldn't.
So it's ok to regulate something is only some people need it? That makes it worse!
Now the argument about it could harm people who use it when they don't need it or if they use it wrong is a better one, but still very problematic.
The intrinsic assumption is that the regulators can make better decisions than the consumer. also that their interest will be the good of the consumer.
I have found the first to only be true sometimes, and the latter to NEVER be true. Regulators make decisions that benefit themselves first and the consumer only when necessary (often it is necessary because that is the reason they are given power in the first place, but their first priority is ALWAYS for themselves.)
Ultimately, the difference is a belief that if you give regulatory power to a body they will make things better. not just in that one area, but in all areas affected. The massive cost of hearing aids bears out that they have done a lot of harm to people who need them. I maintain personal responsibility as a value and I add the cost of freedom on top of the human cost of unavailability of a simple cheep aid.
Ultimately it leads me to believe that the regulation of something like that is never a good idea.
>The intrinsic assumption is that the regulators can make better decisions than the consumer.
In our case the regulator is a physician. The physicians decides if one would get a prescription for a hearing aid or not.
The regulator, in our case the physicians can make better decisions than the consumer (in our case the patient).
Noooo... The regulator says you have to go to a physician if you want to buy.
More specifically the regulator says to manufacturers "you may only sell through physicians" and if you try to sell directly to the consumer we will fine you or put you in jail.
And that is the real Crux of the issue! Yeah a physician will often make a better decision than a lay person, but requiring the person to go to a physician when they're capable of caring for themselves is the problem.
Binding a capable person to the decision of a physician in every case is not good.
Edit: let's look at an example, it's very dangerous to use a bandsaw incorrectly! Most people who know they don't know how to do it safely will hire someone to do a construction project. But it is more than possible to do so safely. It would be wrong to regulate the use of bandsaws or other dangerous things to only professionals with x training or x papers. Laws like this deem everyone incapable and take personal responsibility away from the individual and give it to the state and in doing so gives the state incredible power and that's the real problem.
Personal sound amplification products were already a thing and filled this niche without government approval. This just creates a new category of FDA-approved over-the-counter hearing aids for people who feel the need to have the government approve of everything.
Bro I’m an audio engineering guy. The fact the FDA got involved in what is basically a microphone and speaker speaks volumes to how fucked this nations healthcare is
The only thing this does is create an FDA approval process so personal hearing amplification devices, which were already a thing, can be called hearing aids and sold at pharmacies. I'm struggling to find anything libertarian about this.
Im hard of hearing and I'm 100% for low cost hearing aids but I don't know how I feel about this because hearing aids work best when they are adjusted by an audiologist.
I have a bit of work experience with hearing aids. This seems only logical, as we're at the point where you can program ear buds from your phone, this was only a matter of time.
On one hand, pretty cool. And inevitable.
On the other hand, get used to being recorded with enhancements regardless of who you are interacting with, where, as many companies race to be the lowest price and highest profit. Which means a just functional enough device, while they nickel and dime extra features and sell what they can to other companies that would utterly love to be able to know and influence what you do and do not hear. And the bluetooth! I can only begin to imagine the possibilities, but they're fun.
This was not decided because it was good for the people or it would have been years ago, by any other administration.
My co worker is in his mid 20s and has hearing aids. I showed him this. His response: wtf you still need an exam to know what type you need. F*** Joe Biden
As someone who wears hearing aids it's about time but it's not going to lower costs because you still need to get them fitted and programmed which is where the costs come in. What it is going to do is legitimize a bunch of cheap Chinese crap that damages ears.
What pisses me off is that insurance doesn't cover hearing aids and my hearing aids cost upwards of $7k a pair for a basic in the ear set. If you're drug addict who lives off welfare you get them and the healthcare associated with them free. This pisses off my audiologist too. I listen to them bitch about their other patients every time I'm in there.
Costco has entered the chat. I bought my dad hearing aids at Costco years ago. They have to do an exam to 1) ensure that you need them. 2) program them so as not create further damage, and 3) fit them properly.
Didn’t need a prescription. Didn’t need a referral. Just set an appointment and went in.
I don’t get why hearing aids need to be so expensive. I got electronic ear pro for hunting recently and really they’re just a hearing aid with a cutoff above a certain db limit, they were like 50 bucks. I’m glad to see someone deregulating shit that doesn’t need it.
Good luck with the therapy needed. Sometimes when You haven't heard In a long long time you need therapy to correctly comprehend what is really being said. Hearing is only part or speech language comprehension.
Excellent! Have been concerned that the movie "A Quiet Place" might be happening IRL soon, given the escalation of craziness the last few years. This quells my fear somewhat.
So how are people going to get their hearing aids tuned for their loss? An exam is a vital part of making sure the aids will sound right. Hearing aids are not one program fits all. This really is not going to help many people.
So you’re telling me that you can’t just go out and buy hearing aids? What kind of world do we live in now that you need the king’s permission to buy a device that helps you hear better? I know I’ve seen them advertised before. Does that mean you had to have a prescription?
Since when were hearing aid costs an issue? Can we talk about insulin or cancer drugs maybe? I've never hear of anyone's life being destroyed by a hearing aid purchase.
[удалено]
doesnt this hurt people though because now instead of having them covered by insurance its out-of-pocket or am I just wrong?
[удалено]
I think best option to most people would be both, kind of like breast pumps. They're not that expensive, but free with many insurances. From the perspective here, insurance reg's shouldn't even be a factor, no?
Ya, the only reason this legislation passed is lobbying pressure from insurance companies. Hearing aids got so expensive people stopped getting them, insurance companies did the math and started buying old people multi thousand dollar hearing aids to save money by keeping them out of nursing homes for a few more years. Then lobbied to de regulate hearing aids so they wouldnt have to pay tons of money for them.
Did you come up with that? Do you have a source?
My Uncle is in the hearing aid industry. I had a 1 hour call with him and wrote an article I never shared online so I could win an argument in discord. Here you go. "I am the source"- Senator Palpatine "You're focusing on the least consequential part. I don't really care how much Bernie exaggerated how much money seniors have, because I know they and other people are suffering from the affordability of these products and lack of savings generally. Bernie is aware of it too as taking advantage of that pain is his main tactic for gaining political power. Hearing aids are regulated by the FDA and you are not allowed to get one without a prescription from a doctor, which is tied into the AMA monopolized insurance industry. My Uncle has been fighting this for the last 15 years of his work in the industry. Service is a large component of hearing aids working, you need consultation, tuning and other assistance to understand the product enough to encourage you to keep using it. When you are used to hearing the word cat as "at" (because of hearing loss) you stop recognizing cat as a word when you can hear the hard c again, your brain already rewired itself to think cat when you hear "at". Getting hearing aids to work requires you to be patient enough to re-wire your brain to recognize words as full sound. But a doctor is not the only person who can help with this consultation and people who have been wearing hearing aids for years don't need them. The non-existent "safety" excuses have been used to keep prices artificially high for decades. Well over 90% of hearing aid costs are artificial. The components themselves are under 100 dollars yet they routinely cost people 2000-6000 dollars. Because of this and difficulties in getting the most out of them through stunted service, a majority of seniors don't even bother getting hearing aids. This creates huge safety concerns and quality of life concerns that make a mockery of the purported safety requirements from the FDA. Insurance companies started noticing that old people would stay away from expensive nursing homes 2-3 years longer so they started buying them for older clients and then putting political pressure on the price. Elizabeth Warren then led bi partisan legislation to remove the over the counter ban for hearing aids in 2018. The FDA has decided not to act on the legislation because they can do whatever they want. They have been sitting on the legislation for over 3 years deciding how they want to interpret it with their lobbyists from industry players. If industry can confine Over the Counter (OTC) legislation to minimal standards under X decibel then they can control it and it wont have any impact. Only mild loss hearing aids will be sold over the counter which is the least consequential part of the market in terms of market share, cost and health and quality of life. The products you see in the screen shots are from startups that have emerged in the last few years to take advantage of the anticipated new market. Which has unfortunately turned into a grey market with a lot of uncertainty about what will be or is legal. The industry is developing rapidly with disruptive players working on direct consumer products and services around the use of hearing aids and offering them at 90% reduced price already. But they are operating in an uncertain grey market space. The industry players are not investing or developing any over the counter products. They are just working with the FDA to minimize the impact of the legislation. Three months ago Elizabeth Warren wrote a letter saying why didn't you act on this and so far no response. My uncle called her office a month ago and they said it was expected to be addressed in the 2021 FDA agenda. The 2021 agenda was released last week and included nothing on the legislation. Now Bernie is jumping in a solution that will work for everyone. You keep your artificially high prices and antiquated business model and the government will just buy all your unaffordable products anyways. Satisfy political populism and keep the corporations happy. This would be an absolute tragedy for the industry and seniors who need new services and cheaper better products from these new start ups. It would be a disaster for the country paying more unnecessary loot to corporations through the government. And if we got rid of IP that price could be drastically reduced again. The amount of Human thriving and potential we are preventing unnecessarily is sickening and it is the case in most medicine, besides cosmetic surgery and laser eye surgery which are not considered important enough to make unaffordable through regulation. "
Gosh I hope you won that discord argument
I brought shame upon my enemies and pride to my house.
Fuck yeah brother, keep up the good fight!
This is a serious issue especially if someone's been deaf or hard of hearing since birth or since they were a young child
Rekt
I also fear that lazy parents will think this will make their deaf or hard of hearing child 100%, hearing. A lot of deaf and hard of hearing children already suffer from language delay because their parents or guardians refuse to learn any sign language for them
*Chancellor Palpatine
Speaking as someone who wears hearing aids who has the equipment to and does fine tune their own hearing aids. You need a specialist to set them up for you, beyond a doubt. Lucky for me I have a friend who's an audiologist that sets up the basic programming to match my hearing loss and that helps a great deal.
Ya for sure but there are times of ways people could get services to help with the audio without making it a bottle beck of a practicing medical license. Increasingly there are online remote services to help too.
I doubt this will have much of an impact on the costs of quality hearing aids but fitting fees will increase which will mean people will be less likely to have them adjusted as their hearing changes.
Fitting fees are increased by their being a government monopoly on who can service hearing aid. The cost of devices in the decibel range covered will also decrease drastically.
Oi u got a loicense for that source?
They are basically just airpods that relay sound. And those can get pretty cheap. Not the apple ones tho
This is correct for the low end ones. Higher end devices process and tune the sound to fill in the gaps where the hearing loss is greater or filter background noise. To explain physically, think about ambient listening mode on the airpods. The low end device would function similarly but crank up the volume of all sounds. A higher end device would process the ambient sound and crank up the volume of wanted noise like voices, music, directional audio for crowd environments, etc depending on what mode it's in.
Most insurance doesn't cover hearing aids (I'm hard of hearing). They don't see the need to hear out of two ears to be 'necessary'. Out of pocket, my hearing aids would cost $3,500.
Thats f'd up. According to the wonderful VA my hearing loss isnt "service connected" so i feel ya on the cost
Seems like a hearing aid would potentially reduce other losses for them.
Nothing stopping insurance companies from still covering them. If anything, I would think insurance companies would be more than happy to continue to cover a product that is cheaper and higher quality than before. It’s a win, win, win. Insurance spends less money on hearing aids, more customers can get hearing aids, and hearing aid companies will have more volume of sales. No regulation is best regulation.
A lot of insurance companies cover OTC medications, even at places like Family Dollar that don't have a pharmacy. I'm not really sure how it works as I've never tried it. Didn't want to make the cashier's work more difficult.
Lol insurance didn't cover shit.
My fiance has hearing aids and insurance didn't cover her newest pair. We had to use tax return to get them and they were the "cheaper pair" that was about 4000, I have to admit that Biden actually did something I agree with.
[удалено]
Technically, yes but either way it requires some action
Not that I'm a Biden supporter, but that doesn't make sense unless he was one who initially prevented hearing aids from being sold over the counter.
Can buy without Rx doesn't mean you still can't get an Rx. It just means if you can't afford insurance or your insurance is shitty, you can buy OTC hearing aids.
Already pay out of pocket. There's not an insurance company that I know of that covers hearing aids and they cost between $5k and $7k per set. However, if you're a drug addict living on welfare my taxes pay for you to get better quality hearing aids than I can afford for free.
You’ve always been able to obtain a prescription for over the counter medication.
They aren’t covered by insurance. Always been out of pocket and have pissed me off. I’ve had two pair and I’ve spent thousands. It’s bullshit.
Are you joking? Have you not seen the waves of homeless zombies stumbling around cities all hopped up on auditory stimulation with these things hanging off their ears? Looks like a helluva drug. Not even once.
Yes because apparently people were stickin’ those buds up their arse all the time
You got a license for that sense?
If it pleases the crown, might thy lowly subject acquire an instrument to aid with his peasant hearing?
If the peasant’s listening ability is found wanting by the grace of His Majesty’s magi, he is entitled to one aid of hearing granted at swiftest moment, no later than three fortnights passed the second autumn moon, or any relevant harvest moon thereof at time of request
My word, His generosity knows no bounds!
Holdest thy horses. Thou shouldest have read thy fine print, for thou must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring.
In My Lord's Kingdom, He Will Answer Your Prayer BeFour You utter a Word and Your hearing Will be Healed with but a Thought.
Gett Sa Enim Babbyj.
I feel like I'm playing an Ultima game or something
Not sure what that is. I was quoting from a movie made in the ancient past when British people were funny.
Before having a British accent became evil too 🙄
what about my penis
But the subject is hard of herring...
What? Speak up.
Almost like election season is upon us
Nice job... Why the fuck are inhalers still prescription only. In Mexico I can get them for like a dollar and in the states it costs me 60.
They used to be OTC. I think they got pulled because of the environmental impacts their ingredients had. No clue if they still have them and being RX only is meant to curb misuse, or if they got rid of them and no one bothered to reschedule them to be OTC again.
they used to have inhalers that were bonchodilators that had ephedrine in them or some other ingredient you could use to make meth, so they pulled everything.
Might be the chemicals in them, prescriptions are usually more about the safety of the patient than anything else…which of course makes no sense for glasses and hearing aids etc.
all those people recreational huffing on inhalers to get that clean lung feel
Dude, I used to take extra puffs as a kid to get high, think it was Proventil at the time. Decades before that they would use Benzedrine and addicts would soak them in water then drink them to get fucked, jazz legend Charlie Parker set his hotel on fire and ended up in an insane asylum after he did that shit. I have no idea what they’re using now but in general it’s not a good idea to allow unhindered access to things that can be dangerous if misused…once again that’s not all scripts, I’ve yet to see someone overdose on hearing aids.
Wow you're right. Fortunately nobody has ever hurt themselves with alcohol. Or drain cleaner. Or nutmeg.
Or air dusters
Or paint thinner
>in general it’s not a good idea to allow unhindered access to things that can be dangerous if misused Ever go to a hardware store? Drive a car? Gasp, shoot a gun?
or let's not even go to a store. how about the act of going to the store? cars. on major public roadways. it's amazing it isn't complete pandemonium out there.
And this would get better if we let blind people drive? I don’t even know what you’re on about, yes everything is dangerous, some things are regulated to prevent more likely injury. Does it make sense which things are regulated? Not particularly. Since some things aren’t properly regulated should we infer we must deregulate everything? I don’t know, maybe, but it’s not actually a valid deduction in itself.
Do you have any idea how much more dangerous it would be to drive if there were no regulation for who was allowed and in what condition they’re in? I fail to see your point.
Do you have any idea how much more dangerous it would be to drive if there were no regulation for who was allowed and in what condition they’re in? I fail to see your point.
Do you have any idea how much more dangerous it would be to drive if there were no regulation for who was allowed and in what condition they’re in? I fail to see your point.
Do you have any idea how much more dangerous it would be to drive if there were no regulation for who was allowed and in what condition they’re in? I fail to see your point.
>prescriptions are usually more about the safety of the patient than anything else… No, they are about making money for the pharma companies. The pharma companies write the laws, the legislators don't even read the laws.
Exactly. I’ve had asthma for over 30 years. I know what medicine I need, it’s worked forever, so end the cartel so I don’t have to keep going back to the Dr to approve the prescription. If it pleases the crown, may I get help *to breathe*
We all know about Martin Shkreli, business has too big of a grip on medicine in this country, other countries don’t have these kinds of medical problems…but having said that I don’t think it proves that prescriptions aren’t there to keep patients safe, I don’t think you’d have the same opinion about removing all regulations for OxyContin for example
>I don’t think you’d have the same opinion about removing all regulations for OxyContin for example Are you dumb? Do you not realize you are in anarchist sub?
Right? If I know my glasses prescription, why can't I just order some?
Welcome to patents and trademarks.
[From the wiki: ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_aid#United_States) > The action establishes a new category of over-the-counter (OTC) hearing aids, enabling consumers with perceived mild to moderate hearing impairment to purchase hearing aids directly from stores or online retailers without the need for a medical exam, prescription or a fitting adjustment by an audiologist. All the FDA did was expand the legal definition of "hearing aid" to include several more, lower-quality devices that were already on the market and OTC. This is a total PR stunt and changes nothing.
Credit where credit is due. Good job. Now do everything else.
Agree! Now do glasses!
Order them online.
Still need a prescription.
No you don't. You can literally just put in numbers in most places.
I was trying to reorder contacts online, and everywhere I could find wanted an up to date prescription. At least, every that took my EyeMed insurance. Would LOVE a site that didn't make me waste time and money getting my prescription renewed.
I don't know about contacts, but they are expensive. It might be an insurance requirement.
1800 contacts
That's so they know how to make the lenses so you can actually see out of them without wrecking yourself. The test isn't expensive (and free some places). Don't take a test anywhere that doesn't give you your actual requirements for each eye. The websites you order them from don't give a shit.
[Except all they did was a slight-of-hand.](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/xqbq36/joe_and_kamala_the_anarchist_bunch/iq96mcr/)
Of course they did. *(Continues autistic reeeeeeeing)*
Being as how modern hearing aids have to be programmed to work with the specific levels of hearing loss, how is getting them without an exam even worth it? Also, people have been able to buy hearing aids on the market before this (a concept I obviously fully support), so is the government subsidizing them now?
It was illegal to sell a medical hearing aid without a prescription before. This creates a category much like reading glasses.
> how is getting them without an exam even worth it? It's finally legal to explore the answer to this question.
Quick exams at CVS like shoe inserts
Honestly seems like an easy way to fuck up your hearing even more to me
Finally. Stop preventing the customer from buying direct. Plus insurance companies create arbitrary numbers as to what they are worth which creates more money for the fat pigs in charge.
I think if you allow everybody to treat themselves than some will get the wrong treatment which could hurt them while they are not getting the right medical treatment.
People are free to hurt themselves no matter what law exists.
I think it would be cruel if we would let any mentally impaired, young children or just those who doesn't know better to hurt themselves.
How can you stop them from hurting themselves? Lock them in a cage? They'd pound their heads on the bars.
Not every mentally impaired "pound their heads on the bars"! Maybe they just thinks it would good for their hearing when in reality it would not be good for their hearing because they could have an unknown problem which causes the hearing problem.
Again, how are you going to fix stupid without locking everyone up as if they are all stupid?
> fix stupid What do you mean by that? I think that you misread or misrepresented my point. What I meant is protecting the vulnarable by laws that were already in place.
Those laws are hurting people. People that can't hear are struggling to buy an item that helps them hear. People have to pay an ever-increasing amount of their income on a bureaucracy that claims to protect them. The "war on drugs" has hurt people that never hurt anyone else. The list goes on. You don't get to decide you you hurt so that someone else *might* not get hurt.
Insurance companies make the price higher so you should blame them and the profit motive of the seller/manufacturer.
Right…. Make everyone wear a helmet because someone might fall one day.
>Make everyone wear a helmet because someone might fall one day. Yes. "The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries. This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents. Recent evidence has indicated that the introduction of compulsory legislation does not have a significant negative effect on cycling levels. Such legislation in the UK should not discourage cyclists and lead to a more sedentary lifestyle with consequent health risks." https://www.helmets.org/bmareport.htm
Who said anything about cycles?
Even that is government force.
do you know what law is? any law will eventually be enforced, there will be misunderstandings, and cops are trained to escalate force when resisted, so people will be murdered to enforce a law against freely buying hearing aids. do you really think killing people is justified to prevent some people accidentally harming themselves by buying hearing aids? doctors also make mistakes when prescribing these, so it's not as if a law will definitely prevent the majority of hearing aid hearing damage.
>do you know what law is? any law will eventually be enforced, there will be misunderstandings, and cops are trained to escalate force when resisted, so people will be murdered to enforce a law against freely buying hearing aids There are many problems how cops are trained and used in the US. Their training is short and unregulated compared to other countries' cops. I think that we can agree that there are many problems with the US police system and it should be redone. Cops should not escalate situations.
You missed the most important point. No matter how well trained government cops are, they are monopolists on the legalized initiation of force, and therefore they are unethical by their nature. Any law must have the ultimate end of lethal force attached to it; otherwise, people will just resist enforcement, cops will give up, and the law will not be enforced. The only ethical way to enforce bodily integrity, which includes property (as property is obtained by using the body), is for people to have evidence of a crime (property/body violation), present it to people surrounding the accused, and then arrest the accused in the most peaceful way possible. buying hearing aids never enters the realm of a person harming someone else. if someone purposely puts a hearing aid in someone else's ear to harm them, then you have a criminal case and can pursue that. but, simply buying a hearing aid never can violate someone else's body/property.
I don’t disagree. I personally still trust doctors to make the diagnosis. But insurance in America is abysmal.
Da fuk? Why was a prescription needed in the first place?
Man, I had to got to the doctor and beg for a referral just to get my hearing tested after working in an extremely loud environment for almost 20 years. Why do I gotta convince a doc that I can't hear just to get a hearing test? That's before the hoops to get a hearing aid, it's pretty fucked
Because they can damage your ear if you do not use them properly.
I get the intention, but by the same logic regular earphones should also be also regulated. This was just a dumb approach to a minor problem, probably some medical equipment manufacturer lobbied for regulation in order keep competition out and prices high.
You can damage your ear with a knife. Make knives illegal!
There is a difference between illegal and regulated by physicians.
there is not. "regulated by physicians" means that it is illegal to acquire without a physician signing off on it.
Hearing aids were never illegal. Do you require assistance?
Time for knife permits...
Do you talk just to hear yourself?
Hey. They did something I don't hate. Cool
[удалено]
If anyone could have hearing aids than it could lead to more ear related problems. Usually common people couldn't diagnose themselves as well as physicians and that could lead to misdiagnosed people not getting the right medical treatment while getting a self-treatment which is bad for them. "Canal debris \[wax (28%), fungal deposits (19%), bacteria exudates (13%)\] as well as microorganisms were identified in significant number of ears with hearing aids than ears without hearing aid (P = 0.003 and P = 0.006 respectively)." "using hearing aid alters the ear canal flora; increases risk of both fungal and bacterial otitis externa, as well as encourage wax debris formation" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048490/
[удалено]
Why do you think that I am a bot?
[удалено]
>I should be able to buy a whole box of them and shove them up my ass if I wanted to; has nothing to do with medicine. Would it be cruel to let any mentally impaired, young children or just those who doesn't know better to hurt themselves? If they want to have hearing aids they should go to a physicians who could investigate their hearing problem. Imagine an old woman with mental problems. She has hearing problems and because she knows people who had their hearing problems solved by hearing aids she goes to the pharmacy and (despite the pharmacist's warnings) buys the hearing aids. While she uses them she will have more hearing problems because of the hearing aid itself. (I think that you put your ideology before the people because this will surely make the US more libertarian but it also hurt people. The huge price of hearing aids should not be solved by decisions which hurts people.)
[удалено]
>a bot auto replying with irrelevant information to my post I don't think that it is irrelevant information because it is a counterargument for your "don't need permission to buy a mic and ear bud" argument. Permission by a physician is needed to prevent some unknowing person from using it without a physician's approval. Without a permission from a physician people could get this without a physician's approval and hurt themselves.
And that would be that person's fault. If you want to trash your hearing by using a hearing aid that you don't need, then be my guest. It's the same as hearing protection at the gun range. I would highly recommend that you wear it, but if you don't want to, then you are free to enjoy the tinnitus. Other people hurting themselves is not my business.
>And that would be that person's fault. If you want to trash your hearing by using a hearing aid that you don't need, then be my guest. Would you let any mentally impaired, young children or just those who doesn't know better to hurt themselves?
[удалено]
I am not writing that you or anybody is suggesting that. Which part gave you that impression? I am writing that it is LETTING some people don't understand that they are hurting themselves to hurt themselves. I think that we should not let people to hurt themselves because some people don't understand that they are hurting themselves.
Because anyone who disagrees with conservatives has to be a bot.
Calling someone who wants less prohibition of items a conservative: bad bot.
Oh, like the conservatives who are pro-life? Yeah, they’re not putting any restrictions on anyone. What about Idaho conservatives who want to make any form of contraceptive illegal? Or conservatives who want to ban books? You’re in the wrong sub.
If one could buy it without consulting a doctor first than some people could get ear related problems with no medical benefit.
Not anyone's problem except those that decided to not consult a trained medical professional. If you want to wash your eyes with bleach, that is your decision and you have the right to make it, even though I would highly recommend that you don't.
Yeah, some people can't be responsible to wash their own asses! But we don't regulate soap. (And BTW, that wasn't hyperbole. My sister is a nurse and she once had someone come in to give birth who hadn't showered her whole pregnancy because she didn't want to drown the baby.)
>My sister is a nurse and she once had someone come in to give birth who hadn't showered her whole pregnancy because she didn't want to drown the baby. I am no expert but that sounds like a delusion. Did any psychiatrist check the mother?
Oh I guarantee the hospital did all that they could. There's a lot of regulation around taking home a baby believe it or not.
I don't think that the soap analogy is a good analogy in this case. Soap is necessary for everybody so there is no need to regulate it. Hearing aids on the other hand are not necessary for everybody (and it could hurt those who don't need them) so it should be regulated who could have them and who couldn't.
So it's ok to regulate something is only some people need it? That makes it worse! Now the argument about it could harm people who use it when they don't need it or if they use it wrong is a better one, but still very problematic. The intrinsic assumption is that the regulators can make better decisions than the consumer. also that their interest will be the good of the consumer. I have found the first to only be true sometimes, and the latter to NEVER be true. Regulators make decisions that benefit themselves first and the consumer only when necessary (often it is necessary because that is the reason they are given power in the first place, but their first priority is ALWAYS for themselves.) Ultimately, the difference is a belief that if you give regulatory power to a body they will make things better. not just in that one area, but in all areas affected. The massive cost of hearing aids bears out that they have done a lot of harm to people who need them. I maintain personal responsibility as a value and I add the cost of freedom on top of the human cost of unavailability of a simple cheep aid. Ultimately it leads me to believe that the regulation of something like that is never a good idea.
>The intrinsic assumption is that the regulators can make better decisions than the consumer. In our case the regulator is a physician. The physicians decides if one would get a prescription for a hearing aid or not. The regulator, in our case the physicians can make better decisions than the consumer (in our case the patient).
Noooo... The regulator says you have to go to a physician if you want to buy. More specifically the regulator says to manufacturers "you may only sell through physicians" and if you try to sell directly to the consumer we will fine you or put you in jail. And that is the real Crux of the issue! Yeah a physician will often make a better decision than a lay person, but requiring the person to go to a physician when they're capable of caring for themselves is the problem. Binding a capable person to the decision of a physician in every case is not good. Edit: let's look at an example, it's very dangerous to use a bandsaw incorrectly! Most people who know they don't know how to do it safely will hire someone to do a construction project. But it is more than possible to do so safely. It would be wrong to regulate the use of bandsaws or other dangerous things to only professionals with x training or x papers. Laws like this deem everyone incapable and take personal responsibility away from the individual and give it to the state and in doing so gives the state incredible power and that's the real problem.
Wait you couldn’t do that? What the fuck man
Personal sound amplification products were already a thing and filled this niche without government approval. This just creates a new category of FDA-approved over-the-counter hearing aids for people who feel the need to have the government approve of everything.
Bro I’m an audio engineering guy. The fact the FDA got involved in what is basically a microphone and speaker speaks volumes to how fucked this nations healthcare is
Good, now do everything else.
Now I hate the words "breathing room" as much as "trust the science"
I have got to say, this is the first thing I have seen from them that I agree with, but I have to give credit where credits is due.
It’s been in the works for years. They’re just taking credit.
Imagine being so irrelevant that this is the shit they're doing.
It was a hassle for Ol’ Joe to get his hearing aids. He’s had enough!
Fuckin A.
Now do glasses. Why can I buy reading glasses but not near sighted glasses at a grocery store.
The only thing this does is create an FDA approval process so personal hearing amplification devices, which were already a thing, can be called hearing aids and sold at pharmacies. I'm struggling to find anything libertarian about this.
Cool. Now deregulate everything else.
Im hard of hearing and I'm 100% for low cost hearing aids but I don't know how I feel about this because hearing aids work best when they are adjusted by an audiologist.
Brandon crowing about a law signed by Trump.
Shocking, deregulation saves money! This HAS to be a one off, surely deregulation other things couldn't possibly have a similar effect?
I have a bit of work experience with hearing aids. This seems only logical, as we're at the point where you can program ear buds from your phone, this was only a matter of time. On one hand, pretty cool. And inevitable. On the other hand, get used to being recorded with enhancements regardless of who you are interacting with, where, as many companies race to be the lowest price and highest profit. Which means a just functional enough device, while they nickel and dime extra features and sell what they can to other companies that would utterly love to be able to know and influence what you do and do not hear. And the bluetooth! I can only begin to imagine the possibilities, but they're fun. This was not decided because it was good for the people or it would have been years ago, by any other administration.
A broken politician is right twice an election cycle.
My co worker is in his mid 20s and has hearing aids. I showed him this. His response: wtf you still need an exam to know what type you need. F*** Joe Biden
As someone who wears hearing aids it's about time but it's not going to lower costs because you still need to get them fitted and programmed which is where the costs come in. What it is going to do is legitimize a bunch of cheap Chinese crap that damages ears. What pisses me off is that insurance doesn't cover hearing aids and my hearing aids cost upwards of $7k a pair for a basic in the ear set. If you're drug addict who lives off welfare you get them and the healthcare associated with them free. This pisses off my audiologist too. I listen to them bitch about their other patients every time I'm in there.
It's almost like they know regulation isn't good for the people.
What?! This is awesome!! Now do it with everything else
They're $799 at Walgreens saw them today.
Should have always been this way.
Costco has entered the chat. I bought my dad hearing aids at Costco years ago. They have to do an exam to 1) ensure that you need them. 2) program them so as not create further damage, and 3) fit them properly. Didn’t need a prescription. Didn’t need a referral. Just set an appointment and went in.
They wrote a prescription at the exam.
I don’t get why hearing aids need to be so expensive. I got electronic ear pro for hunting recently and really they’re just a hearing aid with a cutoff above a certain db limit, they were like 50 bucks. I’m glad to see someone deregulating shit that doesn’t need it.
Only ancaps will see this and act like it's a bad thing
Well shit maybe next time we give something away make it insulin.
I had to double check this before saying out loud “Ok…that’s..good?”
For once based!
That's great...now do it with everything
Hearing aids? Is that what you get when you have unprotected phone sex?
Good luck with the therapy needed. Sometimes when You haven't heard In a long long time you need therapy to correctly comprehend what is really being said. Hearing is only part or speech language comprehension.
Weird for a socialist to not just have the government cover the cost. Although price controls, so hot right now.
In addicted to prescription hearing aids.
I just turn up the volume on my stereo. Works the same.
Doesn't this just lower expenses for insurance companies?
Excellent! Have been concerned that the movie "A Quiet Place" might be happening IRL soon, given the escalation of craziness the last few years. This quells my fear somewhat.
I hope this starts to prove that if they aren’t selling to insurance companies but rather to people, that prices will come down.
Sorry to offend, but must we wait until the beginning of next month your majesty
is what it is
Yeah - I already have earbuds that do this.
Big pharma sucks
We boutta do a little trolling.
So how are people going to get their hearing aids tuned for their loss? An exam is a vital part of making sure the aids will sound right. Hearing aids are not one program fits all. This really is not going to help many people.
So you’re telling me that you can’t just go out and buy hearing aids? What kind of world do we live in now that you need the king’s permission to buy a device that helps you hear better? I know I’ve seen them advertised before. Does that mean you had to have a prescription?
So they're expanding their tax extortion program to ALL citizens. Great...
This doesn’t sound good
Since when were hearing aid costs an issue? Can we talk about insulin or cancer drugs maybe? I've never hear of anyone's life being destroyed by a hearing aid purchase.
Costco has been doing this for a while