>>The IT matters discussed here are not discussed from both sides of the counter, mostly. We very rarely get to discuss anything with those who sell the products we buy (unless we count that wave or renegade foxers who were trying to sell us dot net a dozen years ago).

LOL at the bracketed observation. ;-) Of course most here also are sellers of IT opinions and services, perhaps akin to physicians selling health opinions and services that may include the big pharma equivalent of Microsoft products, or perhaps generic/open source. ;-)

>>If you are on the other side of the counter re american health industry, well, you've kept successfully neutral or at least balanced in discussions so far. Much better than, say, Craig criticising Microsoft on some issues just enough to sound neutral when he basically says that Microsoft is right on all other issues.

I neither dispense nor consume healthcare services in the US and probably would do better financially if the privateers were allowed to keep racking up overheads and bureaucracy.

>>Ever since 2002, when I got Republican insurance ("stay healthy!") it's working perfectly for me and my family. My total consumption for the current year is two ibuprofens (half-dose) or perhaps even four.

Isn't your wife a physician, though? Perhaps you are better served than many.; -) But apart from that, can you give us a thumbnail sketch of healthcare provision in Serbia in 2014? I've not had the privilege of visiting, but colleagues describe a perception of corruption and focus on prevention in an environment of scarcity. Fair?

>>I guess the reason the price here is this and there is that is the first market principle: everything is priced at the highest the market can take.

Sadly that would be it. The US consumers get reamed by big pharma, no question. The argument seems to be that US consumers are reliable payers and it's the only way to justify the huge expense of research if you know there is a pool of good payers at the other end rather than grasping foreigners. ;-)