fact-- children are born hyperopic.
fact-- as they grow, they tend to lose their hyperopia and move toward
emmetropia.  some progress further into myopia

so if you believe, as you claim you do, that using Otis' plus lens
treatment on children to prevent them from becoming myopia, thus
leaving them hyperopic, is a good idea then how can you turn around in
this post and claim that its worse to be hyperopic than myopic.

yeh, your right.  when you are a young, being a low hyperope isn't a
big deal.  but being when you get older it really sux.  do you want to
force people to become hyperopic by having them wear plus lenses when
they are going through emmetropization as a child?  do you begin to see
the advantage of being slightly myopic when you get middle-aged?

=============

http://la-sight.com/LS_commDetail.asp?index=157

This dude is only 24 but sees 20/200 at +2.5 and got lasik. He cant see
a thing at distance, much less from near! With myopia, things are
perfectly clear from near and intermediate(if not highly myopic)
distance vision is blurred but for closer range, no glasses of any kind
is needed. This is why I am telling all of you that hyperopia really
sucks, you cant see at *any* distance! Very young people with very low
hyperopia can accomodate around it but larger amounts of hyperopia in
the not-so-young will experience blur at any distance, and much more
blur the nearer you get.