"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:33:44 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


That could very easily be made more competitive by means of trading
disposal credits,

No, all you are doing is creating yet another bureaucratic machine, how
can
you swap providers other than laying new pipe ?!


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.
snip more far right wing ignorance

That is NOT competition, it's a private MONOPOLY / cartel.

Andrew,

Thanks for the reply.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, that's obviously worth investigating too. Thanks.

Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:42:08 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:13:13 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement beyond making sure that there is directed funding for
those unable to make their own arrangements to be able to obtain them
- e.g. healthcare and education vouchers.

Why not privatize things like defence? After all, it's a major profit
maker for the private sector. Regardless of how efficient they are. And
they often aren't.

True, but it's normally something where the delivery has to be
co-ordinated on a national level for operational reasons in time of
conflict. That's why I also excluded emergency services. The
judiciary represents a method of maintaining a stable society -on an
distant basis, a part of democracy itself and so a special case.


But basic services such as health, education and


These are prime services that should be outside government control in
terms of delivery.




Beyond that, I see no reason for national or local government to have
an involvement in delivery in areas like healthcare, education and
pretty much everything else.
All of these when government operated do a poor job of customer
service and are poor value for money for the user and the taxpayer who
is funding it.,

You'd have to define 'poor value' For the rich maybe. For the poor,
invaluable. And that's what a decent society should be about, IMHO.

I think that it's poor value if compare with hospitals and primary
care in other countries. If I want appointments for diagnosis and
treatment in the public sector I have to wait until it suits them and
then be expected to be grateful for what I get.

You always will have to do that, unless you run your own health care system,
if yopu want an apointment on Monday the 1st and 10:30 you won't get it if
someone else has already reserved it, the problem is not enough mony is
spent (or it;s being spent in the wrong places) within the NHS.

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.



Look at the Frinch health service, one of the best in europe (and free at
the point of use), but the French tax payer has to dig a bit deaper.

They charge for GP and other services at point of use.

If the
back room admin waste was cut away, such as the internal market, and the
runing of the hospital / wards were placed back into the hands of front line
staff (in the most) more mony would bve advailible for front line staff and
or more hospitals etc.

A far better solution would be for the whole delivery to be taken out
of the public sector altogether.



snip

I completely agree that a decent society should have a means of
providing healthcare for all, including the poor and vulnerable. I
was careful to say that.

No you didn't, you made a point of making it a charity, something that you
would need to be eligible for rather than a rite...

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.



In other words, everybody should receive "money" in the form of
vouchers or equivalent to spend on healthcare and on education.

So you want yet another layer of HMG interference !

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.



Unfortunately I do think that some method of control is needed because
there will be peoplw who given money instead would spend it on other
things and not cover themselves.

Perhaps there should just be an opt out system for people like you, if you
need health care then you ring for your private doctor, even if it's an
emergency, even to the point of not being scrapped up off the road ?

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.




Everybody should be provided with enough voucher cover to get at least
as good a service as they get today and probably better because of
there being more providers being encouraged into the sectors.

There is, it's called the NHS, or private medical insurance.

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.



People wishing to top up their voucher with money or insurance because
they'd like a private hospital room or an appointment at a different
time or a more suitable school should be able to do so. As it is
today, to exercise choice in education I have to pay twice and for
healthcare three times.
I'm not saying that I mind contributing to the common good, simply
that I would like a choice on what I derive from that common good and
to actually get something in return for my payments.


You do, you get a free basic service, if you choose not to use it and pay
for an alternate service then that *is* real personal choice and you are
exercising it.

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.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:29:08 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:33:44 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


That could very easily be made more competitive by means of trading
disposal credits,

No, all you are doing is creating yet another bureaucratic machine, how
can
you swap providers other than laying new pipe ?!


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.
snip more far right wing ignorance

That is NOT competition, it's a private MONOPOLY / cartel.

So please explain the broad price spread between suppliers.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Bert Coules wrote:
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.

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.

--
*I didn't fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:29:08 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:33:44 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


That could very easily be made more competitive by means of trading
disposal credits,

No, all you are doing is creating yet another bureaucratic machine,
how
can
you swap providers other than laying new pipe ?!


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.
snip more far right wing ignorance

That is NOT competition, it's a private MONOPOLY / cartel.

So please explain the broad price spread between suppliers.


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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:14:14 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:




That is the trouble with public services being run as a profit making,
dividend paying company, there will always be a conflict between what
should
be done and what is done - just as with any true private company, but in
those companies the customers have *real* choice, not just imaginary
choice.

No, youi've missed the point. Competition introduces choice for the
consumer and

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
****e 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
the service offering has to be run to the satisfaction of the
customers. If there is poor service, they buy elsewhere.

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
far more effective way of delivering services than having an
incompetent state megalith operating them.

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....


You also have the opportunity of being an investor in any of the
private service providers who are publicly quoted.


Ah, now we get to the real issues for you, your wish to make money.




I have no problem in what level service is given by the ISP, there is
genuine choice available, but I do have a problem with the delivery
system
were many have no choice what so ever - you either use BT wires or you
don't
use the service who ever the ISP (or phone) supplier is.

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.


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.




and it should be that
way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare,
education and energy.

This man is mad. He wants the NHS to be like Wannadoo.
God forgive him as he knows not what he does.

He seems wants it like the USA, were those with money have the best care,
those below poverty get charity and those who are neither fail into a
void -
and there are plenty in that last group, there health often getting worse
until they are either in poverty or have to be registered as disabled and
thus get Medicare.

I haven't said that at all, so please don't put words in my mouth.

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 ?!

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.

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.



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.

No it is not quite differant, you still want to make money out of others ill
health.




I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

But in the 'service' sector such as water, energy and to a great extent
telecoms there is no real choice, only who you pay the bill to - that is
not
genuine choice.

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.

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).





With water and drugs you don't.

The usual reason for problems is continued government
meddling.

NO. the problems are because it is in profit making greedy hands.

I have no problem with dividends or bonus payments, but only after the
system is working 110 percent, until then those in charge have failed
there
prime duty (and anyone who argues that dividends / bonuses are the prime
function of a [public] service company shows their true colours IMO).

It seems that you don't understand the dynamics of a private sector
service business.

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,
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.


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.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:18:10 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:18:15 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


Yep. Private monopolies should not be. If a service is nationwide
then
it
should be ruin by the gov.

It almost always is........


No it is not, what sector is British gas in, what sector are the energy
companies in, what sector is the telecoms in, what sector is the waste
water
services in, what sector is the water supply services in... The list
could
go on.

I was picking up on nationally operated services being *ruined* by
government control.


Yes, I only noticed IMM's typo after sending my reply...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip clap

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 way would be to use an IEC socket and plug.

Another good idea. Many thanks.

Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:06:02 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Land Value Tax is the way. No other tax except that.

how about taxing copper pipework?

****s like u who r too stupid to use 'speedfit' would be taxed; those
that can read instructions and use a piper cutter would be exempt.

sort of like a tax on stupidity, really.

shokka
________________________________

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:47:22 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

Bt the way, you should have started a new tread, not bust into a (not off
topic) tread about plumbing !

Eh?
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

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

Dave,

Another way would be to use an IEC socket and plug.

Another good idea. Many thanks.

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

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

Lurch,

Bt the way, you should have started a new tread, not bust into a (not off
topic) tread about plumbing !

Eh?

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
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 15:33:13 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:29:08 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:33:44 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


That could very easily be made more competitive by means of trading
disposal credits,

No, all you are doing is creating yet another bureaucratic machine,
how
can
you swap providers other than laying new pipe ?!


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.
snip more far right wing ignorance

That is NOT competition, it's a private MONOPOLY / cartel.

So please explain the broad price spread between suppliers.


Most are not suppliers, they are billing companies, as they certainly don't
supply the product.

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.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Bert Coules" wrote in message ...
Does anyone make a box/plate combination
which is smaller than the standard? I've had a look at some obvious sources
but not found anything as yet.

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.

Lurch,

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

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
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Now look at the water industry. What a shambles. The service levels
are
appalling. Every house should have 50 litres/min of water at 4 bar. Do
we
get it like other countries?

In many countries we have it better....

Not on your Nelly. We spend a fortune on
antiquated tank and cylinder systems to cope with the appalling water
supply.

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.

To have a shower in which you don't have to run around in to get
wet we have to install pumps.

I know of new houses which still only have 1/2" plastic mains pipes
fitted.
Unbelievable.

A Yorkshire water company was erecting stand pipes and cutting off
supplies
as the reservoirs were too low. Over 30% of the mains were leaking, so
all
their money should have been repairing the leaks and replacing mains.
Not
on your Nelly! They paid a dividend shareholders and paid an extra
special
divvy as well. How can these people pay dividends when the system
requires
millions to make it work. Total rip off merchants. I would burn em all.

That is the trouble with public services
being run as a profit making,
dividend paying company, there will
always be a conflict between what should
be done and what is done

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

- just as with any true private company, but in
those companies the customers have *real*
choice, not just imaginary choice.

The private sector exists to make a profit rather than provide a
service - I have no problem with that. "Enhanced services", such as
the internet are fine in the private sector, where real competition
can take place "for fun".

The basis of competition is not for fun, it is for improvement of
shareholder return.

Exactly. Service levels should be first, and only first. Profit is a
bonus

That only comes about when customers choose to
buy the product or service from that company.

Or have no choice to, like water or drugs.

The Internet is far from being an
enhanced service, it is absolutely
core and fundamental to business
today and even to the creaking public
sector. Competition has been one
of the key factors for the survival
of the fittest

The service levels given by ISPs is appalling. It is all geared to make
money, not provide a service.

I have no problem in what level service is given by the ISP, there is
genuine choice available, but I do have a problem with the delivery system
were many have no choice what so ever - you either use BT wires or you
don't
use the service who ever the ISP (or phone) supplier is.


and it should be that
way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare,
education and energy.

This man is mad. He wants the NHS to be like Wannadoo.
God forgive him as he knows not what he does.

He seems wants it like the USA, were those with money have the best care,
those below poverty get charity and those who are neither fail into a
void -
and there are plenty in that last group, there health often getting worse
until they are either in poverty or have to be registered as disabled and
thus get Medicare.


I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

But in the 'service' sector such as water, energy and to a great extent
telecoms there is no real choice, only who you pay the bill to - that is
not
genuine choice.


With water and drugs you don't.

The usual reason for problems is continued government
meddling.

NO. the problems are because it is in profit making greedy hands.

I have no problem with dividends or bonus payments, but only after the
system is working 110 percent, until then those in charge have failed
there
prime duty (and anyone who argues that dividends / bonuses are the prime
function of a [public] service company shows their true colours IMO).

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 02:36:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

With the exception of services such as defence, emergency services,
judiciary and others of that ilk, there is no need for government
involvement

How about land? Open all of that up to market forces? Monopolies? Of
course they should not be in business. But land is full of them. What
is
good for the goose is good for the gander.

The expression is "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander".

snip tripe

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.

"Bert Coules" wrote in message
...
Lurch,

Bt the way, you should have started a new tread, not bust into a (not
off
topic) tread about plumbing !

Eh?

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.


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

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

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:23:08 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:14:14 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:




That is the trouble with public services being run as a profit making,
dividend paying company, there will always be a conflict between what
should
be done and what is done - just as with any true private company, but in
those companies the customers have *real* choice, not just imaginary
choice.

No, youi've missed the point. Competition introduces choice for the
consumer and

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
****e 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 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.



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.

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 ?

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.


This is a
far more effective way of delivering services than having an
incompetent state megalith operating them.

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....

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.



You also have the opportunity of being an investor in any of the
private service providers who are publicly quoted.


Ah, now we get to the real issues for you, your wish to make money.


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.





I have no problem in what level service is given by the ISP, there is
genuine choice available, but I do have a problem with the delivery
system
were many have no choice what so ever - you either use BT wires or you
don't
use the service who ever the ISP (or phone) supplier is.

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.


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.

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.






and it should be that
way in almost all service
industries, especially healthcare,
education and energy.

This man is mad. He wants the NHS to be like Wannadoo.
God forgive him as he knows not what he does.

He seems wants it like the USA, were those with money have the best care,
those below poverty get charity and those who are neither fail into a
void -
and there are plenty in that last group, there health often getting worse
until they are either in poverty or have to be registered as disabled and
thus get Medicare.

I haven't said that at all, so please don't put words in my mouth.

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.

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.

Or
are you suggesting that people pay their own medical bills with these
vouchers ?!

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.



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.

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. 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.

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.

No it is not quite differant, you still want to make money out of others ill
health.

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.






I entirely agree with many assertations that there is a lot of
inefficiency in the public sector, but fail to see any "service"
improvement by turning to the private sector.

Where the customer has a genuine choice and there is competition,
there will almost always be an improvement in what the customer gets.

But in the 'service' sector such as water, energy and to a great extent
telecoms there is no real choice, only who you pay the bill to - that is
not
genuine choice.

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.

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).

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.







With water and drugs you don't.

The usual reason for problems is continued government
meddling.

NO. the problems are because it is in profit making greedy hands.

I have no problem with dividends or bonus payments, but only after the
system is working 110 percent, until then those in charge have failed
there
prime duty (and anyone who argues that dividends / bonuses are the prime
function of a [public] service company shows their true colours IMO).

It seems that you don't understand the dynamics of a private sector
service business.

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...

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



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.


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.


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.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

What, not even for maintenance work !

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:33:33 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

snip clap

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.



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

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:22:04 +0000, Pete C
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:47:22 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

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!

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.




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!

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.





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.

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.

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.





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!

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

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:13:37 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



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.

What on earth are you burbling about?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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

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.

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.
--

SJW
A.C.S. Ltd

Pete C wrote:

I therefore expect that if the NHS was funded to the same level that
the private sector was, queues would disappear quite rapidly!

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

"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

Lurch,

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.

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

Bert
http://www.bertcoules.co.uk

"Owain" wrote in message
...
"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.

You are making this up.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 19:25:32 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




NO! I said "How much do you personally donate to the rich each
year?"
You
are obsessed in keeping them that way. So, how much do you personally
donate
to the rich each year?

I told you already. To me, the rich are the government and the
so-called services provided by it. They are certainly the largest
owner of resources, the least accountable in real terms and the most
incompetent at managing them.

Wrong.

There is no choice of whether or not one wishes to donate, and only
limited choice on how much.

Well how much do you give to the rich?

The whole setup needs to be dramatically scaled down.

You are right. Get rid of the royal family, Lords, ladies, and all the
rest
of the parasites, Eton, Harrow, Oxbridge and that is just for starters.


And have 'President Blair' instead, no doubt....

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

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 11:53:59 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

As I've said to in the past, you seem to be one of those 'I'm
alright,
sod
you' types, the only people who would benefit form your approach are
those

That assertion does not seem to fit in with Andy's statement "...that
works well when I want it *and* still be able to contribute into a pot
for those who are not able to do so to a far more cost effective
extent than today." [my emphasis] does it?


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....

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.

Such tripe. Despite this free at point of delivery, people still do not go
and remain ill.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 10:33:44 -0000, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


That could very easily be made more competitive by means of trading
disposal credits,

No, all you are doing is creating yet another bureaucratic machine, how
can
you swap providers other than laying new pipe ?!


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 completing companies make it cheaper by virtually abandoning any
service. Try phoning them. They also survive by loans from their
customers. You have to be on direct debit and despite companies reading the
meters for them and supplying the reading, they ignore them and estimate the
bill way over, then adjust from one reading at the end of the year. They
use the customers for loans instead of banks. Appalling.

snip misinformed tripe

"Shockwave" wrote in message
om...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 01:06:02 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

Land Value Tax is the way. No other tax except that.

how about taxing copper pipework?

Good thinking. You will go far me boy. Duh!

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
...

snip

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.

What, not even for maintenance work !

NO cut from the mains.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:04:17 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


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.

Such tripe. Despite this free at point of delivery, people still do not go
and remain ill.

Yes, socialised medicine is tripe.

Another aspect is that the megalith has people convinced that it is
doing them a favour for which they should be grateful.

Part of this is aided and abetted by the medical profession itself.
At most hospitals, including those in the private sector, there is
reserved car parking for the consultants by the door. What other
business puts its staff car parking by the door and makes its
customers walk in the rain? It's symptomatic of the wrong attitude.
One can argue that it's good for the customers to walk for the
exercise, but this is not the motivation.

I saw an ad for one of the health insurance companies today - "Doctor
the patient will see you now"
That is how it should be.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:08:20 -0000, "IMM" wrote:




The completing companies make it cheaper by virtually abandoning any
service. Try phoning them.

Why would I want to do that?

They also survive by loans from their
customers. You have to be on direct debit and despite companies reading the
meters for them and supplying the reading, they ignore them and estimate the
bill way over, then adjust from one reading at the end of the year. They
use the customers for loans instead of banks. Appalling.

Only the gullible do that.

I have had suppliers try this on.

The simple solution is to take the actual readings and costs for the
previous year, divide by 12 and offer them that or less for the
monthly direct debit. I then take the shortfall and add it in to the
following year and repeat the process.

One squeaked about it until I told them that they could take it or
leave it. They took it.

Competition makes that possible. My negotiating position is far
better than when I had to deal with state monopolies.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:17:16 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

This situation is changing with local loop unbundling.

The "local loop" of course being the result of many decades of public
expenditure by the GPO/PO, which is expected to be effectively given
away to the private sector who don't want to get their hands dirty
with tasks such as planting poles in the ground, laying dirty cables
in holes in the road...

--
Frank Erskine
OETKBC, MJBC