05-01-2012 03:17 PM
Even if that were true, is it really relevant to the cost? After all, HT doctors typically charge based on the number of grafts implanted, not on the elapsed time of the surgical process.
Originally Posted by WillhasWill
05-01-2012 03:19 PM
Not everyone has zippo debt and little expenses.
Originally Posted by Davey Jones
Me? It would take me one year to save that much money but I am an exception to the rule in many ways and no, I do not make over $100k/year.
Of course, saving it for a year would be more like "putting back what I took out"
05-01-2012 03:22 PM
There should be a hair tax. Tax those that have full heads of hair and divide the monies among those that have less, so we could pay for the treatments. If there are no treatments, then we could at least take the money and have a good time to forget about our bad hair days.
Originally Posted by Scorpion
05-01-2012 04:06 PM
Scorpion is a troll. Do not feed the trolls.
05-01-2012 04:09 PM
And why stop there:
Originally Posted by paulsreef
- Fat tax: Tax fat people to pay for food for the skinny people.
- Skinny tax: Tax skinny people to pay for the fat people's weight watchers and/or gastric bands.
Wait lets stop there don't give the conservatives in the UK any ideas!
05-01-2012 04:14 PM
Many hair transplant surgeons, plastic surgeons, dermatologists, cosmetic dentists, etc, offer financing programs through big banks for elective surgeries. I don't see why RepliCel's procedure would be any different.
05-01-2012 04:19 PM
I'd imagine it's relative to the cost and affects the cost. They are not charging on time per say but the price for grafts is in some way made up of time when the price was first decided.
Originally Posted by gmonasco
Anyway, the point is a treatment like Replicel I think could be pretty economical.
05-01-2012 04:23 PM
Let's see if it works for first. Otherwise there won't be anything to pay for. Economics states that profit is maximized through price discrimination, in other words you charge people that have more money higher fees compared to those that have less. This is often done today. Take cars for instance.
Car makers have the "base" model that is relatively cheaper. Once you add all the goodies, bigger engine, nicer seats, stereo, etc, the price dramatically jumps. Their percentage profit is higher as well usually on the higher-end version. Could it be possible that a company like Replicel would have a starter treatment vs. a treatment including all the bells and whistles for a higher fee? Higher fee for a higher density, more attention and natural hairline, multiple treatments, longer warranty against hair falling out, maybe supplemental fue, and additional hair evaluations? The base treatment might be just an injection. Who knows? The key will be how successful Repicel (insert name of hair solution provider) is.
05-01-2012 04:34 PM
I can see it now, how many hairs would you like today sir? You get larger discounts for larger quantities.
Originally Posted by lpenergy
I hope that price discrimination doesn't get too popular in the medical world. Otherwise cancer treatments in the future will have a sliding price scale depending on how long you can afford to live.
Good point about density though. If Replicel works and they can play around with density then there may be different prices for this.
05-01-2012 04:45 PM
They're back up now and are also on the SEDAR website.
Originally Posted by UK_
Someone on another forum hypothesized that they might have just been preparing the site for a news release. I think they might be right, makes sense to me. Tomorrow morning might be the day.
Tags for this Thread
» The Bald Truth