Nope did not prove your point. I am in my 50's and on SSDI. Perhaps you need to research of the many people who are on MEDICARE. Medicare pays 80% to everything done, you have to pay 20% of the left over. Costing me a total of $700.oo for one eye. And for OPH, Any insurance company cover OPH. DO you research more carefully on what Medicare and what it pays and does not pay. Good luck.You inadvertently proved my point. In the US cataract surgery for those over 65 is covered by Medicare. Medicare pays something like $600 to a cataract surgeon. This includes seeing the patient for the next 90 days. Not a stellar amount for the skill involved in my opinion. However, if the surgeon goes outside the "standard" surgical procedure then the price for the surgery can be anything the market will bear. So for example if a laser is used to initiate the surgery the price could easily be $2000-3000 per eye or more. Now if the gain by using the laser was significant then that would seem reasonable. But the gain probably is insignificant. I know of a very skilled cataract surgeon who has access to a laser but eschews it. He feels that the extra complexity and time involved did not justify using it and he does his surgery without it and gets excellent results. He made this decision after using lasers for a period of time.
So unfortunately no matter what people would like to think money has a sneaky way of insinuating itself in many decisions. Words like laser, stem cells, holistic etc. are often used to make things seem better than they really are. Occasionally there are real significant advances that make a difference. The heart lung machine, the use of pyrolitic carbon in valves (St. Jude On-X) , vascular stenting, and now maybe the placement of valves without open surgery. But many other things are just another way to accomplish the same thing.