[sp1ffy1]

I have no evidence to back this up, but I'm guessing many of the these complications come from the discount LASIK centers that offer very cheap surgery prices.

I can't understand why anyone would have eye surgery at some place that advertises $600/eye on the radio.

I paid $4200 for my LASIK surgery after researching it thoroughly, verifying that it was appropriate for my vision problems and deciding to go with a research hospital that had the latest technology at the time. After my eyes healed in the first few days, I've had zero side-effects and it's been almost 10 years now.

I highly recommend the surgery, but I always tell people not to go for the cheapest option.

[bgroins]

> I have no evidence to back this up, but I'm guessing...

I don't understand. You have admittedly have zero evidence that paying less for a LASIK procedure results in more complications, yet you seem to have a very strong opinion about it. What does the cost of the procedure or advertising techniques of the practitioner have to do with the quality of outcome? If you get a great deal on a new car, do you think that car is going to break down more often than one that cost the sticker price?

[sp1ffy1]

I think it's pretty obvious that on the whole, quality is generally proportional to cost.

There are plenty of times when I choose the cheapest option, but surgery that permanently affects the rest of my life is not one of them.

Additionally, I would say that buying a used car is a more apt analogy since new cars don't usually differ in any way. Different surgeons use a variety of different equipment and have widely varying levels of experience. If I saw a used car that was well below market price, I would be suspicious that something was wrong with it.