Comments:93-year-old Michigan man freezes to death after electric company limits his power usage

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Fingers crossed prosecutions come out of this. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And that subsequent to that someone cuts the heating to the appropriate prison cells in the middle of winter. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism

The flavor you want, the flavor you need. Buy now or die! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.241.151.143 (talk • contribs)

He didn't choose to not buy electricity; if that were the case, I would either admire him for his audacity or pity him for his stupidity. But this was a mistake that just as easily could have happened if a socialist government was distributing the power. The real moral of this story is that birds who migrate south for the winter are smarter than humans who stay in Michigan. ~Planoneck~ 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... I bet the guy is now a lot smarter after reading that piece of your wisdom... Too bad he's a lollipop now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.242.246.29 (talk • contribs)

Planoneck, I dunno how the comment was intended, but it holds weight as an attack on the energy company itself and its municipal owners rather than the system of government. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bush Years

The prefect legacy for the Bush years. Getting his $$ was more important than the lives of voters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.139.26.98 (talk • contribs)

Disgusting, greedy bastards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.147.210.162 (talk • contribs)

Absurd.

Where does lie human dignity? That's a shame. RIP.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.46.18.16 (talk • contribs)

He was 93

I live in bay city Michigan and heard the story and it was just do terrible. I think that the state of Michigan or the electric company should be sued because the law is that they can not put a limiter on any one with low income or an elderly and they did not tell him how to reset the limiter or anything they just put it on so i think somebody should be held responsible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.134.182.252 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 29 January 2009

What a bunch of bastards. I say the residents of that city should burn their building down, it's the least they deserve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.59.244.126 (talk • contribs)

If

they told his veteran group. They would pay his bills. I am watching Fox news about this right now. So f*cking mess up.--66.229.21.217 11:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This company should be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There's no doubt about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.63.178.1 (talk • contribs)

Heh, I think you mean 'prosecuted', not 'persecuted'. However, the latter does have its attractions.

As someone who considers himself fairly left-leaning - if not outright socialist - in his political views, this disgusts me. As an entity, the corporation (in general) is a psychopath, and this is a clear demonstration of such. Politicians, and those who stand to profit from their policies are currently arguing over issues such as universal broadband access; it is becoming a public utility, like electricity. From the perspective of the UK and Europe, I have to ask who were the dunderheads who sold these national assets to people who wanted to profit from them? In America, why wasn't this deemed an essential public service that could not be trusted to people seeking to profit? Both the Internet and generation of electricity became widespread due to the investment of government's money - money they got from taxpayers. Why were these assets ever privatised, or sold? Why should part of my phone, Internet, or electricity bill go to supporting someone lying on a beach in the Bahamas? I want that money spent on bringing fibre to the door globally - for the same price as I pay today. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have news for you, the utilities in most, if not all, of Europe have been privatised. The difference is that in America they were never owned by the government in the first place. --SVTCobra 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Try reading again, I acknowledge what you're presenting as "news for me" in my post. I saw it happen as I grew up. Europe didn't recover after the second world war waiting around for a bunch of capitalists to make investments that would not pay off until their grandchildren were entering college, politicians spent taxpayers money on the investments and infrastructure, then about a generation later a bunch of short-sighted greedy politicians started listening to the siren song of people who could now see ways to make money from all this investment. The utilities were sold with no realistic accounting of the level of public investment. As an example, for British Gas the scam was "Tell Sid" a media blitzkrieg trying to convince people that everyone could profit from privatisation. What the treasury earned was a pathetic undervaluation, city speculators took home the rump of the profit. The 'fast cash' injection the government got has been spent, and everyone is still paying a percentage of their gas bill to the speculators. Sounds awful like a tax to support the rich. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are arguing that electricity should be free, I don't understand what government ownership would have done for 93-year-old man. Governments and their agencies have certainly made decisions that have killed their own citizens. --SVTCobra 17:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Free? Why not? When I was born in Scotland, water was 'free' - 'free' as in people's local taxes paid for its provision. Industrial users were charged based on usage, and property taxes aimed to offset larger premises using more of a common resource. With privatisation, there came a massive investment in putting meters in people's homes so they could be sent bills. Investment in fixing leaks and stopping waste came way back in the field. There was, after all, a huge shareholder dividend to be realised from acquiring this asset. Electricity is not much different. It is difficult to justify calling access to it a human right when so many parts of the world have poor or nonexistent access, but I maintain that food, water, shelter, energy, and education or knowledge are basic human needs that should be available regardless; there should be no profit in these essentials that is not ploughed back into making them more universally accessible and lower cost. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But free to what extent? Do you propose quotas? I wouldn't what my tax payments to cover the excess electricity wasted by that family that covers their house in Christmas lights for a month. What you propose sounds a lot like communism. --SVTCobra 22:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The axiom, "To each according to their needs" does not apply to a gaudy display of Christmas lights, nobody needs to decorate their house and illuminate it - and the wider community should not cover the costs of someone mounting such a display. But for the case this article discusses, money should never have been an issue. The installation of a limiting device as detailed here killed someone in a long, slow, lingering fashion. A crude and inhuman device decided what was "enough"; now someone is dead. Communism is not the answer, there are too many situations where it fails to take human nature into account. However, it serves as a far better canvas on which to try and illustrate how we need to live together. Capitalism is a mechanism whereby wealth and property is concentrated in the hands of the few. What better illustration is there than the oil and gas using electricity generators who have only passed on a fraction of their cost savings due to plummeting prices to consumers. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"To each according to their needs" is where problems arise, in my opinion. Who gets to decide what those needs are? And regardless of who it is, it ends up being a quota. If the electricity provider where you live is not passing down their savings from declining oil prices, it is probably because they have a monopoly, state-owned or not. If there was some free market competition, prices would probably have come down. This article deals with an almost unique case, one that is under criminal investigation; it should not be viewed as evidence that capitalism doesn't work (far better examples exist, if that is the goal). --SVTCobra 00:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All the talk about economics side steps the grim reality of the situation. A man is dead frozen to death inside his home. This happened. Greedy criminal electric company, yes. But the situation that exposed the man to die that way is something the electric company had no influence over. Society alone bears the blame there. The man wasn't given the care and living assistance he obviously needed. Human needs were ignored at cost of a life. A civilized society has to value and respect human needs above any imaginary numbers. 74.227.163.214 03:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Michigan man freezes to death

Whoever gave the order to cut the electricity off should be charged with murder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.163.100.130 (talk • contribs)

I have went to prison twice in my life for petty stupid and ignorant stuff. Should there be a murder case(since this is michigan)??? I say the mans Family be the new owners of the power company? Maybe they would have more compassion for our failing economy and loss of true patrotism. Alma michigan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.69.210.37 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 January 2009

capitalism kills

people over profit

      not 

profit over people!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.242.85.188 (talk • contribs)

ELECTRIC MONOPOLIES NEVER REST SENDING BRAVE TAXPAYERS TO FINAL RESTING PLACE

THESE ELECTRIC MONOPOLIES ARE SICK! MANY LOOK AT THE BANKS FOR FAILURES IN REGULATION CAUSING THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN AND YET THE LOBBYIST FOR ENERGY KEEP YOUR ATTENTION AWAY FROM ELECTRIC MONOPOLIES ACROSS AMERICA WHICH COUNTING FEES AND OTHER UNFAIR CREDIT TACTICS HAVE RISEN 50% TO A 100% NOT ONLY CHARGING MORE BUT POLLUTING FAR MORE THAN ALLOWED AND HAVE ADDED DIRECTLY TO ALL SECTORS RESIDENTIAL, BUSINESS, FACTORY, ETC. THESE ELECTRIC MONOPOLIES MUST BE STOPPED NOT HERE AND THERE BUT ACROSS AMERICA FREEDOM AND RIGHTS ARE RUN OVER BY ELECTRIC MONOPOLIES AND COMPETTITION IS BEING ABANDONED WHILE INNOVATION FOR WIND AND SOLAR SLIP INTO THE POCKETS OF THE MONOPOLIES WHO WILL HOLD IT DOWN AGAIN FOR DECADES UNTIL THE BREATH IS SUCKED OUT LIKE DROWNING TAXPAYERS. EMBARRASSING THIS COUNTRY INTO PAY TO PLAY AND THE VETERANS WHO DON'T FALL IN BATTLE FOR MORE ENERGY DIE AT HOME BECAUSE THE NON FOR PROFIT AND PROFIT ELECTRIC MONOPOLIES TAG TEAM THE TAXPAYER TO DEATH. 2009 AND YOU ARE STILL SICK NET METERING IS UNFAIRLY CORRUPTED AND INSTEAD OF SAVING COAL AS A BACKUP FOR AMERICA IT IS DAILY SOLD OVERSEAS TO A MARKET USA WILL HAVE TO BUY BACK FROM OR WAR WITH AGAIN OVER AND OVER. BE LESS DEPENDANT IS THE PROPAGANDA OF THE ELECTRIC MONOPOLIES BUT ONLY DEPENDANT ON THEM. HYPOCRATS WHY NOT ALLOW MORE SOLAR AND WIND NOW MR PRESIDENT AND KILL OF THE MONOPOLIES AND THE LACK OF NET METERING REGULATIONS?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.3.13.4 (talk • contribs)

elderly man dying

this is another example of corporate greed. i'm sick! soooo sick of the headlines as of late. i can't believe wallstreet and AIG had the audacity to hand out bonuses. politicians and lobbyist have been manipulating things to their own end. bush let corporations have free reign. look where their greed has taken us. this poor man dying is all due to greed. the almighty DOLLAR! i want to do something. right now! i need to physically do something to expell this anger that is erupting inside of me. the list goes on of corporations committing atrocities for the almighty buck. common america or "the little people" are deemed irrelevant. i want to show just how relevant we are. to fly the flag upside down is a sign of distress. it means come quick. we need help. i think every american in distress should hang a flag upside down. how many distress signals do you think we'd see accross america? LET'S DO IT!---Briarrose2 (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

ain't capitalism grand?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.124.87.138 (talk • contribs)

93 year old dies because power shut off in winter

i think this nov. 1 to march thirty first is wrong and i need someone to back me and help me i live in northern michigan i have seven kids and alpena power shut my power down over 173 dollars couldnt wait five days to get paid now they want 500 to turn back on i think the dates shuld be from november 1 to may 31 do to michigan weather today is april tenth 2013 it is freezing out and snowing thanks to whom ever reads this --75.133.24.118 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)