Wish we could all have friends like that.roster wrote: I am having two large doors replaced next week. A friend who is a retired contractor will inspect the work for me (for free). I don't care to have the government building inspector. My friend will do a better honest job.
In part the gov't inspectors can't do as good a job because they're overworked - in my county an inspector gets about 15 minutes to perform a whole-house inspection before he has to scurry off to the next site. They are going to miss stuff. I've had some conversations with one them as I've asked about some of the wacky things my builder did - he is perfectly competent, eager to do what he can to help consumers get a good product. But when he has to visit 25-30 sites in a day it's ultimately a losing battle.roster wrote:When I had this house built, I paid the same retired house builder to regularly inspect as the work progressed. Oh, the government building inspector had to come also - it is mandatory, you can't opt out. But I did not trust him to get me to the quality level I expected.
Another example: One of NIST's functions is to evaluate and test new building materials and construction techniques. Again, they simply don't have the bandwidth to keep up with what industry is putting out - and it *needs* keeping up with. A few years ago in my town there was a fire that seriously injured 6 firefighters (two in ICU, their careers are essentially over) - the floors collapsed way earlier than they expected. The investigation pointed the fingers at the engineered materials used as the reason the structure lost its strength so quickly (the fire started from a cigarette tossed into a mulched bed). These materials (e.g. trusses, joists, subsiding) bring costs way down, but the building industry does not even attempt to evaluate them for fire safety, and the builders stretch the limits of their use so there is no safety margin. The investigator's report from that fire mentioned that 30 years ago you could reasonably expect to have 15 minutes to get out of your house once a fire starts. Houses less than 10 years old give you under TWO minutes. In part because of this, the county is considering making sprinkler systems mandatory for new construction. Getting a budget to do a proper evaluation of the materials in question, so their behavior in off-nominal situations can be properly predicted, is simply out of the question due to budget constraints. It's for certain the manufacturers aren't going to do it unless forced.
How many private home inspectors have the ability to evaluate fire safety? The best they can do is ensure the construction meets government-mandated code, able to take the time to look at details the county inspectors don't have time for. How many consumers know to ask the question about how the materials have fared in fire testing, or if they were even tested at all? Would the manufacturers even tell them if they were asked? I looked up the manufacturer of the engineered joists in my house - I wanted to see if they really were rated for a 36-foot unsupported span. They do not under any circumstances want to talk to a consumer. The builder likewise refused to give me any information. I eventually did stumble across a spec sheet stapled to some joists that were delivered to a neighbor's site, so I eventually got the info anyway. The answer is no, 36 feet for a single span was too far. Wish my private inspector picked up on that, not that the builder would listen at all to him anyway. When I brought it to the county inspector's attention he made them split up the span. The builder listens to the guy who signs the occupancy permits. (This was a tract builder. Once the initial contract is signed the consumer has no leverage whatsoever. I know better now.)
Anyway, in my opinion government regulation has benefit when it's allowed to work properly, and has the time to work out the kinks. Yes, the new Obamacare makes me uneasy, not because of an inherent problem but because it got so watered down and hacked up at the behest of the insurance industry that its original aim has been lost. Not to mention doing a complete overhaul of a system is always fraught with trouble. Better to take a longer-term look and modify the system piece by piece. Starting with insurance companies.
Back to the original topic: Is forcing medical equipment manufacturers to tell people how to properly use their equipment really that awful? How many people came to this forum seeking help and advice because they couldn't get a straight story from the manufacturer, and the DME has no more clue than they do? How many people are getting ineffective or even harmful treatment who don't realize they need to seek help? Seems to me that's a very frequently recurring topic here.
And is it really that awful to make manufacturers provide evidence their stuff actually works? Oh noes, they're gonna take away my $500 magnetic underwear! Just because I don't realize it's pure claptrap is no reason to keep them from taking my money!
Talk about paranoid.. Sheesh..lol
