I have seen the future.

It's the "especially if" bit that confuses me.

It's illegal, but then *more illegal* if there's kids?

Do the penalties change?

From:

glitteringlynx.livejournal.com

No, I think the criteria are just more strict if there are children or the elderly. Such as the temperature at which it would be considered okay. Adults can survive colder temperatures than either kids or the elderly.

From:

For us it's done at the state level, so in Ohio (for instance) during certain months the gas company CANNOT shut off your gas even if you don't pay. Obviously in Florida it's not such a problem, so it's something that would be difficult to handle on a federal level.

From:

itlandm.livejournal.com

He probably waited for the power to come back on. Blackouts happen, after all. (Or at least they used to.)

From:

The article mentions that he had the oven open, like he was using it as a space heater.

With no power, of course, the oven wouldn't come on. But he didn't notice that.

A different article on the same story mentions that he not only had the money to pay the power bill, he had the bills and the money all put together in envelopes, addressed, stamped, and ready to send. MONTHS WORTH. All he would have had to do was drop them in a mailbox - but his functions were so impaired that he didn't do that.

From:

OMG that's so tragic. I was wondering why he didn't ask anyone for help. He couldn't. Poor guy.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/_jeremiad/

I remember reading about this awhile ago. It's tragic.

From:

I was very confused about this until I read into it a little further. Somebody who fails to pay their bills for four months gets their utilities cut off. This makes sense to me. Why is the utility company obligated to provide unpaid services because I've failed to acquire for myself the necessities of life? Is the grocery store obligated to deliver free food to my door because I forgot to pick up groceries and am starving as a result?

That the utility company left a note rather than knocking on the door to inform him that they'd even installed a power limiting device let alone how to use it, muddies the water a great deal.

From:

Because in civilised countries, it is illegal to cut off utilities when doing so presents a serious hazard to life and property.

You can't cut someone off for nonpayment if doing so might make them freeze to death. You especially can't do it without making any attempt to contact them.

In civilised countries, you're legally required to wait until spring - at which point, you can cut them off, and go after them for all the back pay plus interest that you deserve, and you're under no obligation to turn them back on again until they pay up.

The problem here is not "terminated for nonpayment". It is "put senile old man in lifethreatening situation without warning, and, since he was senile, he died."

From:

The legality I understand. The thinking behind it doesn't make sense to me because of the above grocery metaphor. Why does one company that provides the necessities of life have to provide free service when another does not?

From:

whisperkit.livejournal.com

I think theweaselking just pointed out that it's *not* a free service. They can chase the person down for the months they kept them on, plus interest, etc. they just can't cut them off when it's going to kill them.

From:

The services are not analagous. In order to make this about groceries, you'd have to have a contract with the grocery store to
A) provide you with food to a place where nobody else can,
B) provide the food in advance and accept payment later.

And even then, it doesn't match up, because if you cut off the heat to a modern home in -30 conditions, the house will not be liveable when it warms up because all of the pipes will shatter. Even *if* you're lucky enough to have a fireplace (which not everyone does), or to have somewhere to move out to (which not everyone does), the house will have massive damage as soon as the heat comes back on.

The fact that you have a woodstove that can keep your house warm *and* a car *and* neighbours who will take you in *and* the mental acuity to use them does not mean that everyone has all these things or will be able to use them, or that other consequences that you haven't thought of won't happen, and the bullshit Randroid "I personally could get out of that specific situation so anyone who can't handle all possible similar situations is defective" attitude is a cheap excuse for unthinking selfishness.

When the weather is this cold, heat is not like a grocery store. It is like the emergency room of an American hospital - you WILL get seen and you WILL get treated, no matter that you owe them from last time, and they'll add it to your bill and worry about getting paid for it later.

From:

Your Randroid argument is a straw man. It assumes that I'm ignoring the tragedy of the situation, despite my clearly acknowledging it above. It also puts in my mouth the assumption that the resources I have were also available to this gentleman - when my point was that there are other options this gentleman didn't exercise.

I think this is such a polarized issue that we're never going to agree on it, so we're better off just leaving it alone.

From:

He didn't exercise the other options because he's senile. If he were not mentally impaired and had chosen not to pay the bills or ask for help, this would be a different matter, certainly less tragic.

From:

fearmeforiampink

Because by going into business providing heat, something heavily needed by people who may become senile, may become housebound, you take on the responsibility to do your damn best not to kill them.

If they went round to his house, discovered why he wasn't paying, discovered he was sufficiently senile to be a risk to himself and informed the appropriate authorities, who then took him out of there, then they could cut him off.

From:

Their responsibility is actually significantly less than that.

But the point remains that it's illegal, in civilised countries, to cut off someone's heat in the winter.

From:

There are two key points on which I disagree.

1) My grocery metaphor - why does one company have an obligation to fulfill the minimum requirements for life when another does not?
2) Central heating is not essential for life. If my furnace stops working, there's a cast iron stove and a lot of firewood. If that option is not available to me, I will leave the house and go someplace warm. I have a car, and even if I didn't I have neighbours within walking distance who will take me in if necessary. Hell, I have family who grew up in a log cabin with no power or running water just a little bit north of Michigan. There are a lot of things this man could have done that would have resulted in him still being alive - things that he is guaranteed to have known to do given his age. That he failed to do so because of senility is a great tragedy - but that's his failing not the power company's.

From:

whisperkit.livejournal.com

your disability = your fault, basically?

I'd do some work on that theory, fast. It's.. got a few holes.

From:

Not at all. That would imply I'm blaming him for being senile, which isn't the case. I'm saying that he is the person most responsible for his health and well-being - and that fact remains until someone is chosen to shoulder than responsibility.

To carry my second point further, there are numerous things this gentleman could have done to avoid the entire problem. He could have mailed in his payments immediately rather than setting them down to mail later, and then forgetting about them. He could have noticed the unmailed envelopes and mailed them immediately before forgetting them again. He could have arranged pre-authorized payment so that he wouldn't need to pay his bills by hand. He could have recognized that his faculties were failing and sought help.

It's tragic that he did none of these things, but those decisions were entirely his.

From: