A penny for your thoughts? 4
At first, it was a case of overcharging.
Then, when it was pointed out that it's in fact a case of undercharging, it became an issue with inefficiency.
Now, it seems that how much it costs isn't really an issue, as long as the "consumer" doesn't have to pay for it.
angry doc buys medical and travel insurance, and he would rather the insurance company "pay" for the medical report than if he paid out of his own pocket. However, even though angry doc is a doctor and not an ex-CEO of an insurance company, he is not naive enough to think that the medical report becomes "free" to him just because it is "paid for" by his insurance company.
The wonderful thing about insurance companies, like casinos, is that they have a whole bunch of people curnching numbers to make sure that the odds are always in their favour, and that their employers' profit margin is always looked after - if the cost of the medical report is absorbed by the insurance company, angry doc is pretty sure that it will be worked back into the equation, either through higher premiums, and lower payouts, such that the company's bottom-line stays where it is.
So at the end of the day, we still have to pay for what we want or need, regardless of how reluctant we are, and regardless of how little we price (note that I say 'price', not 'value') other people's work.
angry doc is pretty sure Mr Tan knows that; he's just confused as to why he would write as if he didn't.