Hi, Helaine: My ophthalmologist sells contact lenses. Glasses, too. I used to buy my prescription lenses from his office, but about two years ago, I noticed they were significantly less money at an online store. So I am now ordering them that way. That’s good, right? But it’s awkward. The receptionist always asks if I need to reorder “again” when I come in for my annual checkup. So does the doctor. They both obviously recall when I did buy the contact lenses at the medical practice. I say no and look away. Is there a method to handle this so I feel less embarrassed? Or do I need to find another doctor who takes my insurance and start anew? -- Seeing Red

Dear Seeing Red: Repeat after me: You are not in the wrong. You have nothing to feel embarrassed about. And, by the way, neither does the doctor or the receptionist, as long as they are not aggressive about pushing the service on you. Many eye doctors supplement their earnings by selling contact lenses and eyeglasses and the like in their offices. They aren’t the only doctors who do this, by the way. Have you ever visited a dermatologist’s office and not seen a pile of skin potions for sale? You are absolutely not obliged to buy any of this stuff.

But ... it sounds like you would like to continue giving your business to the doctor’s practice, or you would if the price for the contact lenses were the same. So here’s my advice: When you go in for your next annual checkup, and they ask you to purchase the lenses, say you would love to do that but you found them for a lower price online. They might well ask you what that price is and offer to match it. Think about it from their perspective for a moment: They don’t know why you suddenly ceased buying from them. They would probably like to know the answer to that. And by telling them the truth -- lenses are cheaper elsewhere -- you are giving them the choice of how to handle the matter.

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)

Hi, Helaine: My daughter and son-in-law gave me my first (adorable) grandchild last year. My son-in-law has tons of life insurance, but my daughter has none. He's in the military, so life insurance seems to make particular sense, and they are thinking of getting even more. Apparently, the insurance also offers an investment plan, so they are getting two things for the price of one.

My daughter not only works, but she outearns her husband. I hate to think this way, but surely she should be covered too. When I raised the question, they laughed me off and said she wasn't in the military, but I worry. And what about the baby? -- Concerned Grandma

Dear Concerned Grandma: You are right to think this way. No one wants to think about life insurance -- it's truly one of the most depressing subjects out there -- but it exists for a reason. The way I was always taught to think about it is that it is about both replacing lost income and, if a person has caretaking responsibilities, the cost of replacing those services on the open market. For example, studies show that replacing the services of a stay-at-home parent could cost more than $100,000 annually. It sounds to me like your daughter meets both of those criteria.

But here is another question: Why does your son-in-law need more than "tons" of insurance? I've got a rather cynical answer to this: Insurance agents make a nice commission selling life insurance with an investment component. These policies are almost always a bad idea. The annual premiums are high, and the investment options offered within the plans are frequently less than optimal.

My advice? Both your daughter and son-in-law should look into something called level term life insurance, which is plain vanilla insurance that offers coverage for a set period of time, like 20 or 30 years. That's the most cost-efficient way to go. They can take the money they will save on premiums and invest it on their own. I promise they will do better using that strategy in the long run.

There's one person in the setup who doesn't need any life insurance, and that's your grandchild. Life insurance replaces lost income. Unless your grandchild is, unbeknownst to me, a successful child model or actor, he or she doesn't have income. And ignore all those people who tell you that life insurance with a cash value is an excellent college savings strategy. It's not.

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)

Dear Helaine: Recently, I looked around for car insurance and was told my "insurance score" is "average." I couldn't believe it, but I was told it had to do with my credit rating. I have no negative info on my credit record. I checked, and it's clean.

Apparently, they want a history of buying on credit for a good score. I never borrow a penny, and that has cost me higher rates. My driving record is completely clean.

I've always paid cash for everything, including houses and cars. Being a saver, and a prudent and careful investor, I have brokerage accounts in the seven figures and have for decades. How these people could rate me as "average" is beyond comprehension. The fact that I am paying higher rates than someone who needs to borrow galls me. What can be done? -- Insurance Blues

Dear Insurance Blues: I agree with you. I think this is a disgrace. Your credit score should not be a factor in car insurance rates at all. There are lots of reasons a credit score can take a hit that have nothing to do with how you drive -- unemployment and high medical bills are two that come to mind immediately.

But there is a bigger issue here, at least as far as you are concerned: how credit scores are calculated. They are based on how you pay back borrowed money. That means if you are incredibly responsible or cautious -- as you are -- and pay for everything with cash, your credit score will take a hit, and it doesn't matter how much money you have in the bank, in investments, the value of your home and so forth.

There's a reason for this. If you don't take out any loans or buy anything on credit, there's nothing to measure. While there is a growing movement to count such things as regular utility and cellphone payments toward credit scores, it has not really taken off. You would think a seven-figure net worth and no debt would mean something. Unless you are a lottery winner or heir, it would seem to indicate a decent ability to manage money well. But it doesn't register.

My advice: It's not worth fighting the system on this one. I'd apply for a credit card, and when you receive it, make a few small charges, so you can build up credit history. Don't put it in your wallet, and don't input it online. Just take it to the grocery store or some such every few months, and then pay off the resulting bill promptly.

(To ask Helaine a question, email her at askhelaine@gmail.com.)

(EDITORS: For editorial questions, please contact Sue Roush at sroush@amuniversal.com)