Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : VISX -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Binford, Jr. who wrote (468)	3/24/1998 11:42:00 PM
From: Amy Feller	Respond to of 1754

John.. Great post and great points! Amy

To: John Binford, Jr. who wrote (468)	3/25/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: Angler	Respond to of 1754

John, you're right. I guess the regulators, who appear to be liberal anti-capitalistic, would want the Gov't to set proper margins, markups and fees like the Minimum Nat'l. wage for private industry. The Gov't certainly doesn't do that, of course, when it comes to taxes against both individuals and corporations - the sky's the limit. At one time the Gov't. had a more realistic view of what propriety was. During W.W.II the OPA allowed 19% markups on food products as I remember using the Gov't. mulit-page form outlining 19% on everything from $1.00 to $100. If one would want to investigate some price collusions, how about the banking industry where all the majors seem to work in concert raising fees and rates en masse? What can you expect when the onus is to put adversaries in charge of supervising business practices who seem to feel that there is only one market - the one behind their desk. Angler

To: John Binford, Jr. who wrote (468)	3/25/1998 12:10:00 PM
From: Jim Mac	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1754

The FTC is implying Visx and Summit ripped off the myopic public. Dropping the fee by $150 per procedure is an insignificant reduction compared to the benefits of LVC. Obviously, no one forced any individual to acquire a laser or have the procedure done. They all did it willingly, and dropping the price by $150 wouldn't have had any meaningful effect on procedure growth. What does FTC think? Visx and Summit would have charged only $100 without PPP, even if they could easily charge $250? It's ludicrous. On the bright side, this may hasten the dissolution of PPP, to Visx's benefit, and Summit's disadvantage.