Second Great Depression Killed Him
This is how we treat the old and the the poor in America.
Enjoy.
BAY CITY, Mich. - A 93-year-old man froze to death inside his home just days after the municipal power company restricted his use of electricity because of unpaid bills, officials said.How ironic is it that this fellow lived through the first great depression only to be killed by the second one? They cut people off basic utility services all the time here in Jackson, regardless of the weather. It's a huge cause of house fires and carbon monoxide deaths. Too bad there isn't a simple solution to this problem.
Enjoy.
Advertisement
We have laws in Minnesota that prevent utilities from shutting off the heat during the winter.
Several state and county agencies failed here.
An investigation by the state must take place to unwind this mess.
Where was the social welfare office?
How did a 93 year old end up sick and alone?
Where was the decedent's family?
January 27, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe he outlived them all? In any event, I don't think Mississippi has such a law. I'm glad to hear Minnesota has protections, but I don't know about Michigan, where this happened.
Enjoy.
January 28, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a perfect example of what happens when corporations take precedence over people. Let's get rid of "corporate personhood!"
January 28, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
We don't have people freezing to death very often in the Houston area. We turn off peoples power in the summer and let them die of heat stroke.
It's the Texas republican way to keep welfare costs down.
Empathy, where have we lost thee?
January 28, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I'm far from sure what the answer to this question is; I don't want people freezing to death OR people free-riding on the bill-paying habits of others.
The questions of "where was this dude's family" and "why was he alone anyway?" are useful but not really relevant. The answer could simply be "He didn't like them, and he liked being alone." It's a free country.
Possibly including the freedom to freeze to death.
January 28, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhh, I intended to say something like that, but you beat me to it.
January 29, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
El Presidente has a novel point when speaking about the death of this 93 year old man. I just think that the behavior of cutting power during winter is punitive. And you cannot excuse the behavior of the power company. I believe the man froze to death simply because the power company turned of his power. If not paying your power bill causes your death then we should admit that these are the norms of our country today.
This was a vulnerable human being and did not deserve the death he received. And I feel less well about myself and the America I live in. I whish that I could have helped him. And if I was in a position of power I would have. Just imagine how sad it is for a man to have come so far to have died in such a way as simply freezing to death. He deserved much better; he was one of our elders.
January 28, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like the utility companies ought to have some type of liaison for situations like this. Somebody to visit or call the man to see what the problem is. I'll bet SOMEBODY from the collections department was on his rear.
Enjoy.
January 28, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good example of how people fall through the huge cracks in a socialist society. Michigan is one of the most socialist states in the union as well as the most near bankruptcy.
January 28, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears, disturbingly, wWe are slipping back to subsistence-level social conditions, something we Americans haven't experienced, except in remote geographical pockets, since the mid-17th century. This and stories that predate the "meltdown" - like overflow lines of the uninsured waiting patiently for limited access to free dental care - indicate we are regressing, at least spiritually, to the poorest, most backwater standards applicable. How can we allow a banker to decorate his office to the tune of $1.2 million and allow our countrymen to freeze to death? When crap-shoot financial instruments and speculative gaming detached the markets from the rest of the economy, it detached the super-wealthy, and their frenzied minions, as well.
January 28, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look fellow,
You are in no position, no matter how smart you might think you are, to tell anyone how to spend their own money.
It's none of your damn business if a banker fills his office with horse shit. Get it?? None of your damn business!!!! If you have any business, mind it and keep your nose out of that of others!!!!!
January 28, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like RENAYE as been effectively bullshited by the bullshiters at the top. They count on that.
January 28, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so, but where does someone like that get off? He might want to force his objections on how I remodel my kitchen.
January 28, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tile at will, but don't ask for a taxpayer bailout when you run out of caulking around your sink.
January 29, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry. I haven't whined yet. But if ever I feel the need to begin whining for that which rightfully belongs to others, I now know where to find the experts.
January 29, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. It's so much better to milk investors and shareholders for egregious bonuses and perks neither deserved nor affordable. "...That which rightfully belongs to others" - riiiiight. And here's the deed to that bridge in Brooklyn you might want to muse as an investment opportunity.
January 29, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's all kinds of opportunities out there in the real world you can become involved in to get separated from your money. You really haven't grown up yet, have you?
January 29, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't grown stupid, renaye.
January 29, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
A society is judged by how it takes care of its most vulnerable. A 93 year old man living alone is considered to be vulnerable. He may have suffered from dementia or other illnesses common in old age that may have prevented the payment of his bills. A bit of compassion could have long way. Non-payment of bills should not a death sentence - period.
Basic utilities should be publicly owned for the benefit of the public and thus held accountable when they cause the death of our citizens.
January 28, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU judge society in that way.
I happen to judge society by the progress (technological and intellectual) that it makes over time.
Now, that doesn't mean I think what happened here was "right" or "wrong", because I don't think that an administrative decision resulting indirectly in a man's death when said man didn't do anything about it has a moral dimension.
Is electricity a "basic utility"? Are roads? The Internet?
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be public utilities, but the decision over what is and isn't shouldn't be made on moral terms because it isn't a moral decision.
January 29, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roads and the Internet wouldn't keep alive a man in his 90s, freezing from cold in the dead of winter. Electricity would, because that's what delivers our light and heat in this country, this year. That's how we parse it out. Lacking... what... would kill him? There's your moral coefficient.
And empathy? Compassion? Lacking... what... defines us as soulless?
January 29, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's precisely my point; roads are dealt with as a public good. They're mostly paid for with taxpayer funds, and everybody gets to drive on them, whether or not they pay any taxes. Electricity is paid for on a consumption basis; while it isn't automatically or immediately cut off upon nonpayment, that's always an option. In any event, it is -not- treated as a public good. Never has been.
And the definition above of public utilities being run "for the benefit of the public" points out why this is and issue. You can run anything "for the benefit of the public". You can classify anything any way you like. But electricity isn't terribly basic, and it is incrementally expensive (it isn't a "public good").
So you're stretching out pretty far.
January 29, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your argument is... he isn't guaranteed electricity. And you're right: It's a commerical commodity. He pays for it or it's shut off. He must buy it, like he buys... magazines and Wii games. Or, since he needed heat to stay alive, it's more like food and water. Necessary.
But since power is a survival necessity, could arrangements be made - mountains moved - to keep him hooked up? Just until spring? And if worse came to worst, and the utility was forced to write-off as a loss the power it frittered away on this American veteran, how valuable would that lost power be? Would it be worth the man's life?
In this country, right now, yes - that's what it's worth.
The argument for considering necessities conditional purchases is the same argument for keeping medical care a commercial commodity - and out of reach of almost anyone unable to pay for it. A couple of bad months and we're out of the lifeboat. That and our cultural compulsion to debase, cheapen and disregard history (as well as the continued popularity of "American Idol") sets us apart from civilized countries.
January 30, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, different judgments on how society is judged. I don't happen to think that American Idol is interesting (I've never seen it so I suppose I don't know for sure), and I'm a rather avid student of history (last three books: "The Best and the Brightest", "Benedict Arnold's Navy", and "The Prefect" by Alastair Reynolds: Okay, so the last one's a science fiction novel).
So at least you aren't describing me.
However, trying to turn things that aren't public goods into public goods leads to the classic "commons problem": overgrazing. In a modern state, that means constantly escalating expenditures.
Since I, among other reasons, don't want the government to decide when and if my heat is cut off (at least if it's a private company they're answerable to someone: the government has all the guns), I think it is best if we stay a free country, with the attendant costs.
January 30, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
...And, of course, human losses. Necessary and unnessary.
January 30, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some humans ain't human.
Enjoy.
January 30, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink