It is not a coincidence that the two industries that are the most controlled by public sector’s rules, regulations, and out-right subsidies — education and health care — have seen their prices rise at higher than normal inflation.
Keep in mind… according to data reported by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-total health spending in the U.S. amounted to 17.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2011 or about $2.7 trillion. Medicare & Medicaid alone, not to mention SCHIP and all the state programs, were over $1 trillion of that $2.7 figure.
0
It is not a coincidence that the two industries that are the most controlled by public sector’s rules, regulations, and out-right subsidies — education and health care — have seen their prices rise at higher than normal inflation.
Keep in mind… according to data reported by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-total health spending in the U.S. amounted to 17.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2011 or about $2.7 trillion. Medicare & Medicaid alone, not to mention SCHIP and all the state programs, were over $1 trillion of that $2.7 figure.
I dont equate rising costs with government involvement, you classify a cost going up in a political sense rather than WHY the involvement was necessary from the start.
The reason for regulation is because of private sector failures and abuses..and you are correct, the costs are passed onto the consumer in any industry. My focus is on why the regulation exists and that being the cause of the cost, you look at the entity as the cause of the cost. If the industry were doing a better job at not harming the consumer then the industry would not have regulation as it does.
Regulation is not just another form of government control, while some inefficiencies come from the government, regulation CAN do a great ammt of good in protecting the consumer from the private sector.
Also, your Lasik example is bad news...it is a maturing and nearly dead industry..I also recall when it cost 8k and Visix was fighting with that competitor, now one is gone and the other isnt doing so well. I also remember when prices for many generic drugs on patent were 10 times the cost of the generic equiv..
Visix tried to gouge the consumer with their new technology, but like most things new, the initial demand wanes and the company has to cut prices to keep people interested. Same goes for Blu Ray, LED tvs, anything that has a fast demand curve that wont last long term.
0
I dont equate rising costs with government involvement, you classify a cost going up in a political sense rather than WHY the involvement was necessary from the start.
The reason for regulation is because of private sector failures and abuses..and you are correct, the costs are passed onto the consumer in any industry. My focus is on why the regulation exists and that being the cause of the cost, you look at the entity as the cause of the cost. If the industry were doing a better job at not harming the consumer then the industry would not have regulation as it does.
Regulation is not just another form of government control, while some inefficiencies come from the government, regulation CAN do a great ammt of good in protecting the consumer from the private sector.
Also, your Lasik example is bad news...it is a maturing and nearly dead industry..I also recall when it cost 8k and Visix was fighting with that competitor, now one is gone and the other isnt doing so well. I also remember when prices for many generic drugs on patent were 10 times the cost of the generic equiv..
Visix tried to gouge the consumer with their new technology, but like most things new, the initial demand wanes and the company has to cut prices to keep people interested. Same goes for Blu Ray, LED tvs, anything that has a fast demand curve that wont last long term.
I dont equate rising costs with government involvement, you classify a cost going up in a political sense rather than WHY the involvement was necessary from the start.
Government involvement increases inflation and every bit of data shows this. I'm not sure why you dispute that.
You are making rather large leaps of logic in presuming both government involvement is not political - it is - and regulations are the result of consumer complaints. That presumes Congress listens to people and has no agenda by the individual members.
Regulations themselves aren't "good" merely because they exist. There are plenty of stupid and self-defating regulations. You also presume that government involvement is legitimate. I don't agree with that at all.
Also, your Lasik example is bad news...it is a maturing and nearly dead industry
"The global market for refractive surgery devices was valued at US $666.5 million in 2010 and is forecast to reach US $805.2 million in 2017. The market is expected to be driven by an increasing patient population suffering from refractive errors and an increased awareness of the disease and treatment options."
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
I dont equate rising costs with government involvement, you classify a cost going up in a political sense rather than WHY the involvement was necessary from the start.
Government involvement increases inflation and every bit of data shows this. I'm not sure why you dispute that.
You are making rather large leaps of logic in presuming both government involvement is not political - it is - and regulations are the result of consumer complaints. That presumes Congress listens to people and has no agenda by the individual members.
Regulations themselves aren't "good" merely because they exist. There are plenty of stupid and self-defating regulations. You also presume that government involvement is legitimate. I don't agree with that at all.
Also, your Lasik example is bad news...it is a maturing and nearly dead industry
"The global market for refractive surgery devices was valued at US $666.5 million in 2010 and is forecast to reach US $805.2 million in 2017. The market is expected to be driven by an increasing patient population suffering from refractive errors and an increased awareness of the disease and treatment options."
Also, your Lasik example is bad news...it is a maturing and nearly dead industry
"The global market for refractive surgery devices was valued at US $666.5 million in 2010 and is forecast to reach US $805.2 million in 2017. The market is expected to be driven by an increasing patient population suffering from refractive errors and an increased awareness of the disease and treatment options."
VISX was purchased by AMO in 2005, they arent even a company anymore..this LCAV is all there is left and their market cap is 66M, VISX market cap was several billion during the early market days for Lasix. Margins are gone, sales are down, demand is not the only metric but demand is also down..it is a maturing/dead industry.
When most all the market players are out, when profit margins are negative, when market caps of the existing player is less than 1 times sales..that is the sign of a dead industry.
Dead industry does not mean sales are zero, it means that the product is now a commodity, there is no pricing power and barring some new source for marginable product sales, the industy has seen its better days behind it.
What is there to debate?
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Also, your Lasik example is bad news...it is a maturing and nearly dead industry
"The global market for refractive surgery devices was valued at US $666.5 million in 2010 and is forecast to reach US $805.2 million in 2017. The market is expected to be driven by an increasing patient population suffering from refractive errors and an increased awareness of the disease and treatment options."
VISX was purchased by AMO in 2005, they arent even a company anymore..this LCAV is all there is left and their market cap is 66M, VISX market cap was several billion during the early market days for Lasix. Margins are gone, sales are down, demand is not the only metric but demand is also down..it is a maturing/dead industry.
When most all the market players are out, when profit margins are negative, when market caps of the existing player is less than 1 times sales..that is the sign of a dead industry.
Dead industry does not mean sales are zero, it means that the product is now a commodity, there is no pricing power and barring some new source for marginable product sales, the industy has seen its better days behind it.
When most all the market players are out, when profit margins are negative, when market caps of the existing player is less than 1 times sales..that is the sign of a dead industry.
What is there to debate?
That none of what you said is actually true.
Nor can you respond to the fact that without governmental interference the prices continued to decline. Which is why you're now trying to change the subject.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
.
When most all the market players are out, when profit margins are negative, when market caps of the existing player is less than 1 times sales..that is the sign of a dead industry.
What is there to debate?
That none of what you said is actually true.
Nor can you respond to the fact that without governmental interference the prices continued to decline. Which is why you're now trying to change the subject.
Nor can you respond to the fact that without governmental interference the prices continued to decline. Which is why you're now trying to change the subject.
Here..read an income statement and get back to me..
Also, reasearch how much AMO paid for VISX back in 2005..and that was on the back of a decline for the stock. I followed VISX for nearly a decade before it was acquired..I might know the background JUST A LITTLE..
See all those negative numbers on the Income Statement? That isnt a good thing 14..that is a bad thing.
So what I said isnt true..good one. I love how your fall back position is to say it isnt true even when the correct information is staring at you right in front of your eyes.
To your second point, it makes no sense..without government interference the prices continue to decline. That is the most hilarious thing I have heard today.
Why not just say that without government interference the cost of PC's decline or the cost of a generic dvd player declines, or that a generic drug cost is lower than the patent one..
Yeah prices have NOTHING to do with market saturation and demand decline..nah it is because the "government isnt interfering"
You might as well quit replying, you wont win this one 14..
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
That none of what you said is actually true.
Nor can you respond to the fact that without governmental interference the prices continued to decline. Which is why you're now trying to change the subject.
Here..read an income statement and get back to me..
Also, reasearch how much AMO paid for VISX back in 2005..and that was on the back of a decline for the stock. I followed VISX for nearly a decade before it was acquired..I might know the background JUST A LITTLE..
See all those negative numbers on the Income Statement? That isnt a good thing 14..that is a bad thing.
So what I said isnt true..good one. I love how your fall back position is to say it isnt true even when the correct information is staring at you right in front of your eyes.
To your second point, it makes no sense..without government interference the prices continue to decline. That is the most hilarious thing I have heard today.
Why not just say that without government interference the cost of PC's decline or the cost of a generic dvd player declines, or that a generic drug cost is lower than the patent one..
Yeah prices have NOTHING to do with market saturation and demand decline..nah it is because the "government isnt interfering"
You might as well quit replying, you wont win this one 14..
So what I said isnt true..good one. I love how your fall back position is to say it isnt true even when the correct information is staring at you right in front of your eyes.
Kind of like saying "I dont equate rising costs with government involvement"
PS: North America represents the largest market for both ophthalmic lasers in general and refractive laser surgery in particular, with Europe the second largest
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
So what I said isnt true..good one. I love how your fall back position is to say it isnt true even when the correct information is staring at you right in front of your eyes.
Kind of like saying "I dont equate rising costs with government involvement"
PS: North America represents the largest market for both ophthalmic lasers in general and refractive laser surgery in particular, with Europe the second largest
According to Ophthalmic Lasers: A Global Industry Outlook available from Global Industry Analysts, the global market for ophthalmic lasers will rise from $591.5 million in 2011 to $804 million by 2015, a compound annual growth rate of 7.65 percent.
"So what I said isnt true..good one. "
- It isn't true. At all.
0
Dying industry!!!!
According to Ophthalmic Lasers: A Global Industry Outlook available from Global Industry Analysts, the global market for ophthalmic lasers will rise from $591.5 million in 2011 to $804 million by 2015, a compound annual growth rate of 7.65 percent.
To your second point, it makes no sense..without government interference the prices continue to decline. That is the most hilarious thing I have heard today.
...
Yeah prices have NOTHING to do with market saturation and demand decline..nah it is because the "government isnt interfering"
You might as well quit replying, you wont win this one 14..
Notice you have no actual response to the lack of government interference other than to say 'that's ridiculous'
You're now reduced to saying there is a "demand decline" in a growing industry.
Which of course is necessary for you to continue to believe these things which are simply not true.
I'm not looking to "win" anything because you are not at all interested in changing your opinons. You believe in government you ignore facts, and that's that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
To your second point, it makes no sense..without government interference the prices continue to decline. That is the most hilarious thing I have heard today.
...
Yeah prices have NOTHING to do with market saturation and demand decline..nah it is because the "government isnt interfering"
You might as well quit replying, you wont win this one 14..
Notice you have no actual response to the lack of government interference other than to say 'that's ridiculous'
You're now reduced to saying there is a "demand decline" in a growing industry.
Which of course is necessary for you to continue to believe these things which are simply not true.
I'm not looking to "win" anything because you are not at all interested in changing your opinons. You believe in government you ignore facts, and that's that.
Here..read an income statement and get back to me..
Ok.
1. Your premise - that LCAV is "all there is left" is false (the most popular of the major LASIK companies in the U.S. are TLC, LASIKPlus, ILASIK, LASIK MD and LASIK Vision Institute) and a majority of the doctors doing Lasik don't work for them anyway.
2. You don't seem to understand that demand for Lasik isn't down. 700,000 people are going to get it this year. And, I helpfully posted the industry trends that you ignored.
3. Extending your logic - since Kodak went out of business, there is no demand for camera's or pictures, right?
Well, there are more photos taken and stored now than ever before. So it really isn't helpful to look at a big company's financials and extend the performance to a product or service. Another great example would be In 1983, IBM controlled roughly 76 percent of the PC-compatible market, but in 1986 its share slipped to 26 percent. IBM got out of manufacturing PC’s entirely in 2005. Of course we wouldn’t say demand for PC’s went down.
Anyway, this is all a diversion from ObamaCare and the government's role in driving up the costs of health care.
I'm done with the diversion.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Here..read an income statement and get back to me..
Ok.
1. Your premise - that LCAV is "all there is left" is false (the most popular of the major LASIK companies in the U.S. are TLC, LASIKPlus, ILASIK, LASIK MD and LASIK Vision Institute) and a majority of the doctors doing Lasik don't work for them anyway.
2. You don't seem to understand that demand for Lasik isn't down. 700,000 people are going to get it this year. And, I helpfully posted the industry trends that you ignored.
3. Extending your logic - since Kodak went out of business, there is no demand for camera's or pictures, right?
Well, there are more photos taken and stored now than ever before. So it really isn't helpful to look at a big company's financials and extend the performance to a product or service. Another great example would be In 1983, IBM controlled roughly 76 percent of the PC-compatible market, but in 1986 its share slipped to 26 percent. IBM got out of manufacturing PC’s entirely in 2005. Of course we wouldn’t say demand for PC’s went down.
Anyway, this is all a diversion from ObamaCare and the government's role in driving up the costs of health care.
The diversion started by you 14..did I bring it up or did you?
You are looking at sales, that is not indicative of an industry in decline or not.
7% growth is not growth, real growth is double digits plus, which is what Lasik had back in the 2000 era..go back and look at the sales and stock price for Visx when there was REAL pricing power.
You are correct about indy doctors doing procedures, but as I said above that does not mean that the procedures are highly PROFITABLE versus when the industry was growing.
It is akin to you saying that DVD sales still exist so demand is great and the industry is awesome..you ignore price and profit, focusing only on sales..and that is erroneous. If a company has negative margins it doesnt matter HOW much their sales are..they are selling their services at a net loss on each transaction. The margins for eye surgery have been declining, that is what happens in an industry in DECLINE. It does not mean Lasik is going away, just that the prices have to keep falling to keep sales going..if pricing were at the 8k level as they were back in the 2000 era, what kind of sales do you think would be transacting?
My comment about the government involvement in healthcare is that you focus only on the political aspect, not on why costs are higher for scripts, procedures, doc visits..across the board. There are many more components to why healthcare inflation has out stripped general inflation for decades than just Medicare and Medicaid not being fully efficient.
You are also correct, stopping while you are only slightly behind is a great idea. You obviously do not understand operating margins versus gross sales and you think 7% projected growth is healthy.
0
The diversion started by you 14..did I bring it up or did you?
You are looking at sales, that is not indicative of an industry in decline or not.
7% growth is not growth, real growth is double digits plus, which is what Lasik had back in the 2000 era..go back and look at the sales and stock price for Visx when there was REAL pricing power.
You are correct about indy doctors doing procedures, but as I said above that does not mean that the procedures are highly PROFITABLE versus when the industry was growing.
It is akin to you saying that DVD sales still exist so demand is great and the industry is awesome..you ignore price and profit, focusing only on sales..and that is erroneous. If a company has negative margins it doesnt matter HOW much their sales are..they are selling their services at a net loss on each transaction. The margins for eye surgery have been declining, that is what happens in an industry in DECLINE. It does not mean Lasik is going away, just that the prices have to keep falling to keep sales going..if pricing were at the 8k level as they were back in the 2000 era, what kind of sales do you think would be transacting?
My comment about the government involvement in healthcare is that you focus only on the political aspect, not on why costs are higher for scripts, procedures, doc visits..across the board. There are many more components to why healthcare inflation has out stripped general inflation for decades than just Medicare and Medicaid not being fully efficient.
You are also correct, stopping while you are only slightly behind is a great idea. You obviously do not understand operating margins versus gross sales and you think 7% projected growth is healthy.
It is akin to you saying that DVD sales still exist so demand is great and the industry is awesome..you ignore price and profit, focusing only on sales..and that is erroneous. If a company has negative margins it doesnt matter HOW much their sales are..they are selling their services at a net loss on each transaction. The margins for eye surgery have been declining, that is what happens in an industry in DECLINE. It does not mean Lasik is going away, just that the prices have to keep falling to keep sales going..if pricing were at the 8k level as they were back in the 2000 era, what kind of sales do you think would be transacting?
Well, not it isn't anything like DVD's because there isn't a new technology obsoleting Lasik.
You also are misrepresenting what was posted (par for the course) to continue engaging in this absurdity.
Note: what you're saying is yet again easily demonstrated to be wrong. LASIK from 2006 to 2012
2006: $1,950
2007: $2,099
2008: $2,105
2009: $2,140
2010: $2,150
2011: $2,124
2012: $2,159
Looks like the prices are falling to me!
You are also correct, stopping while you are only slightly behind is a great idea.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
T
It is akin to you saying that DVD sales still exist so demand is great and the industry is awesome..you ignore price and profit, focusing only on sales..and that is erroneous. If a company has negative margins it doesnt matter HOW much their sales are..they are selling their services at a net loss on each transaction. The margins for eye surgery have been declining, that is what happens in an industry in DECLINE. It does not mean Lasik is going away, just that the prices have to keep falling to keep sales going..if pricing were at the 8k level as they were back in the 2000 era, what kind of sales do you think would be transacting?
Well, not it isn't anything like DVD's because there isn't a new technology obsoleting Lasik.
You also are misrepresenting what was posted (par for the course) to continue engaging in this absurdity.
Note: what you're saying is yet again easily demonstrated to be wrong. LASIK from 2006 to 2012
2006: $1,950
2007: $2,099
2008: $2,105
2009: $2,140
2010: $2,150
2011: $2,124
2012: $2,159
Looks like the prices are falling to me!
You are also correct, stopping while you are only slightly behind is a great idea.
Simple question..do you consider this industry in its growth life cycle?
Notice we've gone from your claim that the industry is in decline that you're now demanding to know if it is in the "growth cycle" as if there is no in between.
I'd add: he global market for ophthalmic lasers will rise from $591.5 million in 2011 to $804 million by 2015, a compound annual growth rate of 7.65 percent.
Is not even what you're saying.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Simple question..do you consider this industry in its growth life cycle?
Notice we've gone from your claim that the industry is in decline that you're now demanding to know if it is in the "growth cycle" as if there is no in between.
I'd add: he global market for ophthalmic lasers will rise from $591.5 million in 2011 to $804 million by 2015, a compound annual growth rate of 7.65 percent.
By the way, 20 percent+ is outstanding growth, 7-8 percent per year is higher than average.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/answer/221233
That is closer to the truth.. 7-8 percent historic growth is slightly better than average, yet that is not the only metric to measure if an industry is in decline or not.
What is more indicative is what you posted above..there is no pricing power as per what you quoted above. I appreciate you proving my point, for the previous six years the pricing for this industry has been within a 2% range, that positively is not pricing growth, and in several of those years the pricing dropped.
With no pricing power or control the industry can sell 20% more services a year and make ZERO additional dollars. The 7% growth rate with less than half a percent in price increase means the net gain on these sales in PROFITS is less than 1%.
Hell even a dog like Lucent can increase sales, but they cannot increase prices to make any additional profits on those sales.
Lasik is a commodity..sales with no pricing power and horrible margins.
Nothing wrong with it, the technology isnt vastly improving, doctors can buy a unit and not need to replace it, just keep it functioning and churn out a minimal profit off it..work on volumes to make money.
For sure it is a slow grind way to make a living, but no way is it a growth engine for a practice looking to add a product with high margins.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Nice straw man.
Anyway, I found this funny:
By the way, 20 percent+ is outstanding growth, 7-8 percent per year is higher than average.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/answer/221233
That is closer to the truth.. 7-8 percent historic growth is slightly better than average, yet that is not the only metric to measure if an industry is in decline or not.
What is more indicative is what you posted above..there is no pricing power as per what you quoted above. I appreciate you proving my point, for the previous six years the pricing for this industry has been within a 2% range, that positively is not pricing growth, and in several of those years the pricing dropped.
With no pricing power or control the industry can sell 20% more services a year and make ZERO additional dollars. The 7% growth rate with less than half a percent in price increase means the net gain on these sales in PROFITS is less than 1%.
Hell even a dog like Lucent can increase sales, but they cannot increase prices to make any additional profits on those sales.
Lasik is a commodity..sales with no pricing power and horrible margins.
Nothing wrong with it, the technology isnt vastly improving, doctors can buy a unit and not need to replace it, just keep it functioning and churn out a minimal profit off it..work on volumes to make money.
For sure it is a slow grind way to make a living, but no way is it a growth engine for a practice looking to add a product with high margins.
If I went to my financial advisor and told him a company with a compound annual growth rate of 7.65% was not experiencing "real growth" he'd probably die laughing.
PS: Walmart's revenues grew an average of 5% from 2006-2009
I guess that dummy running the place isn't a billionaire or they didn't open a bunch of new stores or anything.
0
If I went to my financial advisor and told him a company with a compound annual growth rate of 7.65% was not experiencing "real growth" he'd probably die laughing.
PS: Walmart's revenues grew an average of 5% from 2006-2009
I guess that dummy running the place isn't a billionaire or they didn't open a bunch of new stores or anything.
Notice we've gone from your claim that the industry is in decline that you're now demanding to know if it is in the "growth cycle" as if there is no in between.
I'd add: he global market for ophthalmic lasers will rise from $591.5 million in 2011 to $804 million by 2015, a compound annual growth rate of 7.65 percent.
Is not even what you're saying.
We havent gone from anything..do you understand the nature of a business cycle for an industry?
Yes or no..
If yes then my point is as it was from post 1. The industry has passed through its growth cycle and is a mature/declining industry..sales GROWTH is slowing relative to its previous years..that is a maturing/declining industry.
Do you understand that even with sales growth, if that growth is DECLINING relative to historic growth rates, that is considered a NON-growth industry?
You are saying any growth means the industry is in its growth cycle, and that is positively erroneous.
So are you not understanding the business cycle and the relative nature of sales growth, what is considered a growth cycle and what is not? If you are lacking in this area its ok to just admit it.
I dont try to spout off in areas that I lack, no reason for you to try and bull rush your way through something you obviously are not well versed in.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Notice we've gone from your claim that the industry is in decline that you're now demanding to know if it is in the "growth cycle" as if there is no in between.
I'd add: he global market for ophthalmic lasers will rise from $591.5 million in 2011 to $804 million by 2015, a compound annual growth rate of 7.65 percent.
Is not even what you're saying.
We havent gone from anything..do you understand the nature of a business cycle for an industry?
Yes or no..
If yes then my point is as it was from post 1. The industry has passed through its growth cycle and is a mature/declining industry..sales GROWTH is slowing relative to its previous years..that is a maturing/declining industry.
Do you understand that even with sales growth, if that growth is DECLINING relative to historic growth rates, that is considered a NON-growth industry?
You are saying any growth means the industry is in its growth cycle, and that is positively erroneous.
So are you not understanding the business cycle and the relative nature of sales growth, what is considered a growth cycle and what is not? If you are lacking in this area its ok to just admit it.
I dont try to spout off in areas that I lack, no reason for you to try and bull rush your way through something you obviously are not well versed in.
If I went to my financial advisor and told him a company with a compound annual growth rate of 7.65% was not experiencing "real growth" he'd probably die laughing.
PS: Walmart's revenues grew an average of 5% from 2006-2009
I guess that dummy running the place isn't a billionaire or they didn't open a bunch of new stores or anything.
Awesome..you prove my point again for me. Walmart is NOT in its growth curve as a business..they are a maturing, stable company who is experiencing declining sales growth, they have grown to what they will as a company and while sales can increase, unless they find a new niche to expand their growth, they will continue to be a maturing company.
Walmart opening stores does not mean the company is in a growth stage..their growth rates have been SLOWING, I dont think you understand this concept.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
If I went to my financial advisor and told him a company with a compound annual growth rate of 7.65% was not experiencing "real growth" he'd probably die laughing.
PS: Walmart's revenues grew an average of 5% from 2006-2009
I guess that dummy running the place isn't a billionaire or they didn't open a bunch of new stores or anything.
Awesome..you prove my point again for me. Walmart is NOT in its growth curve as a business..they are a maturing, stable company who is experiencing declining sales growth, they have grown to what they will as a company and while sales can increase, unless they find a new niche to expand their growth, they will continue to be a maturing company.
Walmart opening stores does not mean the company is in a growth stage..their growth rates have been SLOWING, I dont think you understand this concept.
Nothing wrong with it, the technology isnt vastly improving, doctors can buy a unit and not need to replace it, just keep it functioning and churn out a minimal profit off it..work on volumes to make money.
Uh-huh:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new technology that may change how your eye surgeon performs your LASIK procedure. It's called IntraLASIK. While the creation of the initial flap with conventional LASIK is made using a mechanical device, the IntraLASIK procedure uses a precision laser device to create potentially a more precise flap without the use of a blade.
• Next-generation excimer lasers that can address a broader spectrum of prescriptions than early generations. The result is that a wider range of vision correction can be achieved with LASIK. Today’s LASIK technologies, as opposed to first-generation lasers, can benefit those patients with more extreme vision prescriptions.
• Femtosecond laser technology, a very precise system that allows some patients with thin corneas to take advantage of LASIK. The precision of the femtosecond laser for flap creation makes it possible to create very thin flaps. Thinner flaps also reduce the incidence of dry eye post-LASIK, making it appealing to those patients with a tendency for preoperative dry eye.
• Wavefront technology that creates a microscopically-detailed map of the eye. This personalized, high-definition measurement is unique to the patient and details minute irregularities on the surface of the cornea that contribute to quality of vision. This “surface map” guides the excimer laser, making optimized and customized corrections possible and increasing the percentage of patients seeing 20/20 and better.
• Advanced diagnostic equipment that allows clinicians to evaluate both the front and the back surface of the cornea and improve results.
Would that be an example of you spouting off in an area you lack?
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Nothing wrong with it, the technology isnt vastly improving, doctors can buy a unit and not need to replace it, just keep it functioning and churn out a minimal profit off it..work on volumes to make money.
Uh-huh:
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved a new technology that may change how your eye surgeon performs your LASIK procedure. It's called IntraLASIK. While the creation of the initial flap with conventional LASIK is made using a mechanical device, the IntraLASIK procedure uses a precision laser device to create potentially a more precise flap without the use of a blade.
• Next-generation excimer lasers that can address a broader spectrum of prescriptions than early generations. The result is that a wider range of vision correction can be achieved with LASIK. Today’s LASIK technologies, as opposed to first-generation lasers, can benefit those patients with more extreme vision prescriptions.
• Femtosecond laser technology, a very precise system that allows some patients with thin corneas to take advantage of LASIK. The precision of the femtosecond laser for flap creation makes it possible to create very thin flaps. Thinner flaps also reduce the incidence of dry eye post-LASIK, making it appealing to those patients with a tendency for preoperative dry eye.
• Wavefront technology that creates a microscopically-detailed map of the eye. This personalized, high-definition measurement is unique to the patient and details minute irregularities on the surface of the cornea that contribute to quality of vision. This “surface map” guides the excimer laser, making optimized and customized corrections possible and increasing the percentage of patients seeing 20/20 and better.
• Advanced diagnostic equipment that allows clinicians to evaluate both the front and the back surface of the cornea and improve results.
Would that be an example of you spouting off in an area you lack?
Awesome..you prove my point again for me. Walmart is NOT in its growth curve as a business..they are a maturing, stable company who is experiencing declining sales growth, they have grown to what they will as a company and while sales can increase, unless they find a new niche to expand their growth, they will continue to be a maturing company.
So Walmart is in a dying industry then, right?
Funny, using your logic 90%+ of all the symbols listed on the DOW & NASDAQ would by "dying" because they aren't growing at 20%.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Awesome..you prove my point again for me. Walmart is NOT in its growth curve as a business..they are a maturing, stable company who is experiencing declining sales growth, they have grown to what they will as a company and while sales can increase, unless they find a new niche to expand their growth, they will continue to be a maturing company.
So Walmart is in a dying industry then, right?
Funny, using your logic 90%+ of all the symbols listed on the DOW & NASDAQ would by "dying" because they aren't growing at 20%.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
