Speedfit technique

[Lurch]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:23:55 -0000, ":::Jerry::::" strung together this:

Eh?

[Lurch]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:22:33 -0000, "Bert Coules" strung together this:

Out of interest, what is this to be used for.

[Bert Coules]

Lurch,

Well yes, I was a little surprised by that comment, too. I thought I had started a totally new thread, and my newsreader (Outlook Express) gives every impression of agreeing with me.

But if I didn't, then as I said, my apologies.

Bert

[Andy Hall]

If I buy the product from them they are the supplier. They may wish to subcontract, but that is their affair. There is, nevertheless, a choice, even though the saving is based on ability to trade and minimise administration.

[Medallion Man]

RS part number 199-9254 is surface mounted, but I don't see a reason why you couldn't sink the box into a wall.

[Bert Coules]

Lurch,

A connection to a combi boiler, inside the removable housing which covers the pipework. To fit a standard-size socket would necessitate making the housing wider than the boiler, which would look very unsightly.

Bert

[IMM]

Britain & Ireland are virtually alone in the tank/cylinder setup. It seems all the world is wrong. I have nor experienced a water cut in decades.

The law says the company must put them first. The company must be geared to make money for them. Madness.

[IMM]

You never read it. It falls within your private competition. OK for everything else, but must not allow the aristocracy to be poor, so monopolies don't apply to land.

You are a saddo.

[:::Jerry::::]

Well it's showed up in the 'Re: Speedfit technique' thread on my machine.

Just fired up another newsreader and you are correct, it is a new thread, gawd knows what happened !

[Andy Hall]

The issue is that I can buy from company A or company B, in the same way that I do with electricity. I don't really care about the arrangement between the two. Natural commercial arrangements apply. I can get a good deal from A if they have negotiated a bulk purchase with B. It means that B doesn't have to handle so many transactions and interfaces with fewer customers. This saves B money.

The structure results in less bureaucratic overhead which is the hallmark of state run industry. The consumer benefits as a result.

It doesn't matter. The internet is often provided by local loop provided by BT, local routing infrastructure by the ISP, transit by a large carrier and so on. There are commercial arrangements between each. The user buys a service and that's it. The organisation with whom they have an agreeement is responsible for doing the most cost effective deals that will benefit the end user.

This is not difficult. It isn't necessary for megalithic organisations to run the whole thin from soup to nuts.

The world has moved on.

They all operate in a competitive market. In the short run if they don't deliver, people get fired. Ultimately if they don't deliver, they lose customers from people buying elsewhere. Newcomers are able to make a business out of the failure of the large companies. If the whole thing is under state control and regulated without competition, there is no motivation for improvement.

Actually I'm not a shareholder in any of the utilities - there are much better investments. I was simply pointing out that there is an opportuinity for those who wish to do so to invest in organisations supplying them with goods and services. Indirectly, most people do anyway through investments and pension schemes.

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.

I was completely clear on my position. If people don't want to have private insurance, there would be no need for them to do so. If they do, or if they wish to supplement the state provision with cash then they should be allowed to do so without penalty.

It's perfectly simple. People receive healthcare vouchers and can spend them at the facility of their choice and receive a service level equivalent or better than that provided today. If they wish to shop elsewhere, their government provided contribution can be used to pay for part or all of that with insurance or cash topping up if the customer wishes to do so.

No. Once again for the hard of thinking. I would propose removal of the NHS totally - i.e. the government gets out of the healthcare delivery business. People are provided with healthcare vouchers, not means tested which can be used at a wide choice of competing private facilities. If people would like to supplement with medical insurance or cash then they have the ability to do so. This reduces administration considerably because government is not operating most of it. Private sector suppliers compete with one another for customer satisfaction and spend the money on providing what the customer wants rather than the silly administrative nonsense of making sure that somebody in Newcastle gets the same as somebody in Brighton.

It is totally different because the private sector is motivated to provide return on investment to shareholders. That can only be achieved if customers buy. Customers buy if they get good service. It's really very simple.

State control is not required at all. The privatisation of the administrative elements cuts out the bureaucratic nonsense that exists in those areas of state run organisations.

Water is not a privatised service with choice at consumer level so has not benefited from lack of government control.

There is choice of supplier in many service indistries and prices are relatively lower as a result. The problems occur when there is still state intervention.

[:::Jerry::::]

What, not even for maintenance work !

[Andy Hall]

Not at all. Clearly you haven't read what I said, or have chosen to apply preconceived socialist principles to it - i.e. that public services should be in state ownership. I don't subscribe to that principle, but I do subscribe to everybody being provided with a good quality choice of services that work efficiently and effectively. This is an unselfish view based on the principle that governments are not efficient deliverers of services.

[Andy Hall]

There is already a system of costing for treatments and unelected organisations already play God in terms of who is prioritised for treatment and who is not.

The state should at least provide sufficient funding for healthcare to a basic level. It follows that if people wish to supplement that and buy their own services that reources are freed up.

There is nothing inconsistent about this. The state no longer provides *all* that is needed by way of a pension in order to live in retirement, but supplements those who really need it.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to make their own arrangements and having their own choices.

I would envisage the NHS being shut down completely as a delivery vehicle. By switching to a voucher based system there would be far greater transparency on what is being delivered at the sharp end. As it is today, obscene amounts of money are put into the NHS machine and the customer is not getting good return.

This is accounting sleight of hand. The costs can be made what the bureaucrats want them to be. I am quite sure that with all the overhead costs included right back to the point of paying tax, the NHS cost is hugely more that 10,5k

[Andy Hall]

What on earth are you burbling about?

[Lurch]

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:06:01 -0000, "Bert Coules" strung together this:

So you don't actually need a plug and socket then, just an isolator in the vicinity with the flex 'appearing' somewhere around the boiler, possibly from a hole in the wall.

[Capitol]

Unfortunately the NHS problem is not funding, but capacity. There is a distinct lack of Drs, Surgeons, experienced nurses, beds etc and a surfeit of politicians, managers and paperwork. It is not fast to install more capacity with a 10 year training leadtime and where the staff working conditions are frequently poor, leading to fast turnover of personnel . Throwing vast amounts of taxpayers money at the problem, as is currently being done, achieves very little.

A voucher system IMO doesn't work. OK for the odd broken leg etc, but hopeless for the individual with say, MS. The strength and desirability of the NHS lies in its meeting a need for cost effective "adequate" lifetime health cover for the UK citizen and having the buying power to control drug companies desires for unlimited profits. IMO where it falls down is in its inability to limit demand to major essentials and to force people to cater for and pay for their own trivia. We understand that free motor cars are unreal, we have to accept that free unlimited healthcare is also unsustainable.

Insurance systems as in the US, lead to 1/3 of Americans having no health cover. They just hope they survive to Medicare! If these people had healthcare, the US system could not cope as they also have major staff shortages. Now, they are finding that their(like our) shrinking company pension schemes are ruling out medical cover when retired!! Health costs there, are (and have been for some years) rising at around

13%pa! No company pension fund can sustain these costs. Neither of their political parties are prepared to grasp the taxation nettle of providing a national health system of any type. An older American lady I met had her own solution to very high drug prices, she was going to die rather than pay that much!!

I believe the Australians have come up with a compromise system, can someone enlighten us?

Regards Capitol

[Owain]

"IMM" wrote | > So you would prefer a system that has no reserve, so when the | > delivery system fails so does any means of having water for | > 'vital' domestic health related services also fail ?... | Britain & Ireland are virtually alone in the tank/cylinder setup. | It seems all the world is wrong. I have nor experienced a water | cut in decades.

Neither had I until a few weeks ago (and some people were off for >2 days).

Oh, how I laughed at the thought of people with combi boilers.

Owain

[Bert Coules]

Lurch,

That strikes me as rather messy. A plug and socket, necessary or not, would be much neater.

Bert

[IMM]

You are making this up.

[IMM]

Got it in one. The Republic of Great Britain. I can't wait!