How about using a circular conduit fixture, IIRC you can get socket outlet, although it will be un-switched. you'll be looking at about 50mm dia. Just a thought.
Bt the way, you should have started a new tread, not bust into a (not off topic) tread about plumbing !
Err, he can, and you can't !
Thanks to Jerry and Dave for the suggestion of a conduit socket. The fact that it would be unswitched doesn't matter.
Jerry,
That's very strange; I thought I *had* started a new thread. Many apologies.
Bert
Even countries with socialised medicine have charges at the point of delivery - e.g. small payment for GP visits, exempted for the poorest. AFAIK, Britain is the only country that attempts a free at the point of delivery system. It's an outdated nonsense.
Sigh.... Which is why the government should deliver healthcare by means of vouchers available to everybody and adequate to purchase healthcare from a variety of sources according to choice. Those wishing to add to it can then do so without the double financial penalties that exist today.
The point is not about the government making provision for healthcare cover for everybody, but being involved in the delivery of the actual services. In other words, government should make the financial but not the delivery arrangements.
They need a 2" mounting hole (unless they've changed since I last bought some a long time ago.) MK part is 735WHI. The plugs themselves overhang the sides so they won't be a lot of use if the plug has to go in an equally narrow space as you won't be able to get you fingers on it to pull it out.
MK also do a smaller surface mounting socket, 74x64mm. I suppose you could sink the surface mounting box into the wall, or make up a appropriate one some other way.
Does the socket have to be a 13A one? For lighting, there are the 6A Klik architrave sockets, but that obviously can't come straight off a ring circuit, and isn't going to be suitable as a general purpose socket.
It's perfectly simple. There is competition in the electricity and gas supply industries which is achieved perfectly well without the need for additional cable and pipework infrastucture.
THe same principle can be applied to water supply and waste disposal.
Wast disposal credits are already a traded commodity so there is no reason why the same principles used there could not be used as the vehicle for water supply and waste disposal.
It is also the ability of your immediate supplier to negotiate the most favourable transport arrangements with the infrastructure and production owners. This can be achieved by introducing competition at the point of sale to the consumer.
It is also the ability of the retail supplier to negotiate the best deal he can get from the infrastructure owners and commodity suppliers. This is achieved by commercial ability on the part of the retail supplier including running a low cost and efficient administration. The element of competition here has made a big improvement to consumer cost.
Of course it can. There are multiple elements to utility businesses. In some it is practical and desirable to introduce competition, in others it is not practical.
You need to think outside the box.
No, youi've missed the point. Competition introduces choice for the consumer and the profit motive and reward for shareholders mean that the service offering has to be run to the satisfaction of the customers. If there is poor service, they buy elsewhere. This is a far more effective way of delivering services than having an incompetent state megalith operating them.
You also have the opportunity of being an investor in any of the private service providers who are publicly quoted.
That situation is changing with local loop unbundling. BT will still provide the wires but the user's contract will be with the ISP and not as it is today with two contracts.
I haven't said that at all, so please don't put words in my mouth. What I actually said was that the government should provide everybody with a financial means to purchase healthcare to at least the current level. Inevitably this means that higher income earners will pay more into the central tax fund to support it than lower income earners. This is quite different to the US where government delivered support is effectively means or disability tested.
My two arguments are a) that the government should not be in the service *delivery* business - i.e. should not be in the hospital business; and b) that those wishing to take their healthcare entitlement and add to it via money or insurance can do so (today the state piece is lost) and without tax and NIC penalty on top as it is today.
That is all quite different to the US arrangement.
THere are many pieces to a utility business. If one can put competition into some of the parts it is infinitely better than operating it under state control.
It seems that you don't understand the dynamics of a private sector service business. If there is a profit element as one piece of it, the business is driven to achieve that. Ultimately the way that that happens is giving good service so that people come again and recommend to their friends. These elements are missing from a state run operation where there are only service targets and no competition. There is no incentive to perform or improve.
I was picking up on nationally operated services being *ruined* by government control.
That is NOT competition, it's a private MONOPOLY / cartel.
Andrew,
Thanks for the reply.
The plug will need to come out only very infrequently, so as long as it is actually possible to remove it, a bit of awkwardness won't matter over much.
Yes, that's obviously worth investigating too. Thanks.
Bert
These are prime services that should be outside government control in terms of delivery.
The problem is the existence of the NHS. Obscene amounts of money are being spent on what is an outdated wet dream.
It should be shut down and replaced with privately operated healthcare delivery operations. THese could be individual hospitals or more systemised versions of care such as HMOs are in the US. There are advantages and disadvantages of both.
Regarding getting appointments, I have always been able to get an appointment for private consultation and treatment within either a required week or for more obscure and non urgent things within two or three weeks. I have the choice of going elsewhere if I want to do that.
They charge for GP and other services at point of use.
A far better solution would be for the whole delivery to be taken out of the public sector altogether.
I know what I said. You chose to read something else into it. I did not mention or imply the word charity and was very careful to say that there should be a voucher system to make sure that everybody does get money to spend on healthcare. What I don't want is the government operating the delivery and I do want the ability to spend my heathcare provision where I want and to top it up if I wish.
No I don't. It's perfectly simple. Close the NHS. Provide people with vouchers or equivalent means of payment for healthcare services at a place of their choice. Allow them the freedom to add to their healthcare provision if they wish.
That isn't what I said either. I exempted operation and coordination of emergency services. It's reasonable for coordination purposes to have them regionally operated by the government. However, there is no reason why the medical facilities backing them up need to be state operated at all.
The point is that the government should not be in the delivery business because it demonstrably doesn't work with the NHS.
Private medical insurance normally only covers acute conditions and is a financial arrangement, not a means of delivery. If the delivery is also outside state control and people can choose where they purchase the services, the better organisations will attract better staff and more customers and will ultimately be more successful. THe poor quality middle management of the state megalith would be forced out of the sector as it should be.
The point is that if I do use an alternative service then I am freeing up resources in the state operated facility. Therefore the government should contribute an equivalent amount to the cost that would have been incurred in the state facility towards my private healthcare requirement. This is not asking to receive anything more from the state than anybody else would get. As it is, that doesn't happen and moreover there is tax and national insurance to pay on the private insurance premiums. That is not reasonable.
So please explain the broad price spread between suppliers.
Another way would be to use an IEC socket and plug. The socket is small and easy to mount on a panel. You'd need to feed it from a suitably fused FCU, though, and the maximum current is 10 amps.
The plugs can be fiddly to fit. If possible, might be worth buying a lead with a moulded on plug (Maplin, etc) and change the flex on the appliance.
Most are not suppliers, they are billing companies, as they certainly don't supply the product.
":::Jerry::::" wrote | "John Rumm" | I suggest you find out just how many 'above poverty' Americans fall | through there so called health care system before supporting a 'non | free at point of use' health care system....
And Americans pay about a third *more* for their health care for a similar or worse level of service, because the private health companies take
*profit*. Not that profit is a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily going to be offset by greater efficiency. The American health care system is bogged down with insurance bureaucracy, and ours is bogged down by managerial and governmental bureaucracy and arse-licking target-meeting.Owain
Not it does not, if I buy water off company 'A' but my area is within that of company 'B' then all I'm doing is paying A to pay B, if B's service is s**te then I'm stuck with it - I can't get water directly from company A. What's more I'm presumably paying less (indirectly) to company B, that will reduce their income that is needed to maintain the service. Company B can't refuse to deal with company A either, and have to supply (on paper) water at a rate that allows A to make money.
the profit motive and reward for shareholders mean that
See above, they only buy it on paper, the product or service still comes from the company supplying / distributing it. Gas is a case in point, so is water (both supply and waste), electricity is another. How many people buy their calls through a tecom's 'provider' but still use the BT network ?
This is a
The are many incompetent private companies out there to, many think BT and Transco are just two of them, but you seem to think that (because they have been privatised) they are the best things since sliced bread....
Ah, now we get to the real issues for you, your wish to make money.
So, at the end of the day BT will still be the real provider, all you will be doing is paying someone to pay BT whilst taking a cut of your money...! Look at broadband, most are buying it from an ISP, they then buy it from BT, something goes wrong, you complain to your ISP but they can't do anything about it until BT does.
That is what you want though, what other meaning could there be, you want people to have to have private medical insurance - hence the vouchers. Or are you suggesting that people pay their own medical bills with these vouchers ?!
So all you are suggesting is to add another layer of government to hand out these vouchers, just like the NHS 'internal market' has increased the layers of non medical staff and accountants in the system, which in turn has increased the basic cost of running the service before anything gets spent on the front line medical service.
No it is not quite differant, you still want to make money out of others ill health.
No it is not, all it does is provide a cash cow for some and a more expensive product for the rest, unless you have some form of state control, direct or indirect (such as Ofwat).
Yes I do, people lining their own pockets whilst the customer suffers from appalling service at an inflated price ! Well it would be if the directors and share holder could get away with it, hence the need to have state control of these private [public] services via Ofwat etc...
If there is a profit element as one piece of it,
In a non essential, non monopoly service sector you are quite correct, but we are talking about services that all have to use and have no real choice about who they can buy from.
Yes, I only noticed IMM's typo after sending my reply...
Sorry but you are either off your head or highly selfish in your attitudes, I don't see any point in replying to such a extreme self cantered person.
Dave,
Another good idea. Many thanks.
Bert
Hi,
I think the sticking point you have missed out is who decides the value of the vouchers, it better not be politicians from a certain party!
I'd be happy for them to do so if all their health care was paid for wholly by the vouchers and nothing more, but hell would freeze over before that happens!
Again, the problem is that the funding of the NHS could be run down by parties of a certain political persuasion, in order to pay for tax cuts. This would affect the less well off more than the affluent who could pay the extra to go private.
As an aside, someone I know is getting a private hip replacement at a cost of 10.5K.
Looking at the NAO website, the cost of a NHS hip replacement works out at 4.6K
I therefore expect that if the NHS was funded to the same level that the private sector was, queues would disappear quite rapidly!
cheers, Pete.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.