Power Company Turns Off Power on Woman's Breathing Machine

[Cecilee]

All companies will waive all or parts of bills pretty frequently. I did the books for a bank for a few years, and even that of all places writes off bad accounts due them. After a while, a company is obligated to waive the bill under good accounting practice, because they cannot credibly claim that sale if it isn't likely that they'll be getting the money any time soon if at all. The idea that they'd go bankrupt if they did that all the time is largely a paper argument. In a free enterprise business, the company learns to not even enter negotiations with such risky clients. But utilities, as we've already discussed, are not free enterprise businesses. They can't deny someone who wants to start using their services, because we've already established that it is not the power company's asset to give and deny as they wish. For that, the state government protects them from both competition and bankruptcy. I would imagine that a utility company's accounts receivable writeoffs are staggeringly high because of that. And that's fine.

The power company will write off the money this family owes them, plus the 10k they gave to pay for her funeral, plus the money they will pay for her death. In the end, they should have kept the power on. With the money they'll lose now, they could have written off everyone in the last year with free electricity. Sometimes doing the right thing is truly the right thing.

The idea that she had a bill has little to do with the argument of whether the power should have been left on or shut off, however. It could have very well stayed on or off independent on what the bill did or did not do.

The fam was actively trying to pay this bill down. The bill was decreasing. They should have kept the bill and kept the power on. They chose incorrectly from a business standpoint as well as from a human standpoint. And they will pay for that in the end.

 

[Zerayla]

Sometimes doing the right thing is truly the right thing.

Well put. In the end, we always have a choice to follow our morals or "protocal" and its pretty obvious what happened here. We as human beings, have the ability to be compassionate and understanding, or greedy and ignorant. Its sad that there are people that were trying to justify the death of another human being, especially one that had children.

And no matter how "corporate" businesses can get, they always bend rules and make exceptions, because at least in this generation the people running them are still people and not robots.

 

[Strid]

They did waive her bill. She owed $304.40, which the power company discounted to $290.79. She paid $106.90 but they only asked her for $168.90.

Means they were only asking for $275.80 if I"m reading right.

Thats a pretty big "waive".

:biggrin:

One should note the difference between waive and a waiver. They are not the same word and should not be used as such. Hell, they aren't even synonyms... I said I bolded for emphasis. I figured at least one person would cath it and know what it and I meant. At the very least, one should know it was important and to look it up before you screw it up. I guess I was bankin' on to much there.

 

[Darkdante]

One should note the difference between waive and a waiver. They are not the same word and should not be used as such. Hell, they aren't even synonyms... I said I bolded for emphasis. I figured at least one person would cath it and know what it and I meant. At the very least, one should know it was important and to look it up before you screw it up. I guess I was bankin' on to much there.

So now we are arguing about words?

Hell if I know what your getting at, not like it matters. You ment if i'm reading correctly that Utility companies always expect you to pay every red cent. And in this case it's obvious you were wrong. But I guess I was bankin on too much expecting you to understand that there now huh?

 

[Strid]

You ment if i'm reading correctly that Utility companies always expect you to pay every red cent.

Not even close.

 

[Artem]

So, the company gave 6-7 week notice before turning the power off? Was the company informed during that 6-7 week period that she dependent on oxygen machine?

From what I read, they didn't tell the company, they told the guy who turned the electricity off on the day he did it.

If the company was informed ahead of time that she needed the electricity for health, than full responsibility lies on the company.

If they told the technician on the day he turned off electricity, well nothing much to say there. It's the family's fault. The company is being generous for doing what they are doing.

Yes, it is a sad situation, but you can't lift all the blame from the family just because it's a terrible situation for them. Yeah, bad shit happens for making stupid decisions, but you still have to take responsibility.

 

[Strid]

Yeah, bad shit happens for making stupid decisions, but you still have to take responsibility.

Fuckin' aye.

 

[Darkdante]

Yes, it is a sad situation, but you can't lift all the blame from the family just because it's a terrible situation for them. Yeah, bad shit happens for making stupid decisions, but you still have to take responsibility.

No one in this thread or the media, not even the power company is saying the family didn't need to take responsibility.

What they are saying is the power should not have been cut, and every party is in agreement in this, except maybe on qcdn, which you guys seem to think it's ok to let people die if they owe a couple hundred dollars in bills.

The payoff the power company made to the family to avoid a lawsuit speaks for itself.

 

[Artem]

No one in this thread or the media, not even the power company is saying the family didn't need to take responsibility.

What they are saying is the power should not have been cut, and every party is in agreement in this, except maybe on qcdn, which you guys seem to think it's ok to let people die if they owe a couple hundred dollars in bills.

The payoff the power company made to the family to avoid a lawsuit speaks for itself.

If the company didn't know, how are they responsible? Telling the technician after 6-7 weeks of notice is not letting the company know.

The company is paying for the family because it's a tragic accident and they want to look humane. If it went to court, the company would win, but it would make them look like the biggest pieces of shit ever.

I feel bad for them too, but that doesn't mean you have to blame someone else for their mistakes. Be it ignorance, lack of education, they are still the ones who should be responsible for telling the company. The company can't possibly go to everyone's house who is about to have their electricity cut off and ask people if they are sick.

I'm sure if the company found out on their first notice, this would have all been avoided.

 

[Cecilee]

Through several articles the family states that they had contaced the company thoughout this process. The company maintains that they had no knowledge of her health. That front is a stalemate.

 

[Strid]

Through several articles the family states that they had contaced the company thoughout this process. The company maintains that they had no knowledge of her health. That front is a stalemate.

We can assume all we want but the fact of the matter is, we all know had they been well informed and if the family was using the proper channels that everyone else seems to be using perfectly fine, she wouldn't have died. How many times in your life can you remember an incident like this happening? I bet you it wont be many, if any at all. Sometimes power outages cause old people to die in heat, that's a different story. Never in my life, until now, have I heard of someone who needing power to support an illness, much less a self-inflicted illness, having it go out on them.

Come on now, it's time to let it rest and let the proper people resume responsibility here. I think it's a load of crap the company is even giving them a dime just for the principle of the matter. Now that responsibility is in the hands of someone who it shouldn't have been in, you Democrats should be happy!

 

[Darkdante]

If the company didn't know, how are they responsible? Telling the technician after 6-7 weeks of notice is not letting the company know.

The technician was informed before he left the premises, but he left anyway. What your trying to say is their technicians are too stupid to make critical decisions on thier own meaning if they kill someone in the line of duty it's not thier fault. Where in the world do you get this type of mentality?

And anyway, the company accepted responsibility so why even argue?

The company is paying for the family because it's a tragic accident and they want to look humane.

Exactly! This is why you accept responsibility OR better yet you don't cut the power in the first place. Kind of late to attempt to look humane after the lady is dead huh?

If it went to court, the company would win, but it would make them look like the biggest pieces of shit ever.

Wrong. The State already stated its position, which is why the company is so quick to accept responsibility, it knows it would lose.

If the company thought it wasn't liable do you think they would publicy accept responsibility already? Come on now...........

"State Owned Enterprises Minister Trevor Mallard said there were reports the family had been warned about the overdue account.
"The correct authority to investigate this and sort out the facts is the police," Mallard said, adding the government would expect "full accountability" if the company was found to be culpable."

I feel bad for them too, but that doesn't mean you have to blame someone else for their mistakes. Be it ignorance, lack of education, they are still the ones who should be responsible for telling the company. The company can't possibly go to everyone's house who is about to have their electricity cut off and ask people if they are sick.

I agree with you. But your not being realistic. You want something to be based on your own set of values without taking into account what happens in the real world. In the real world companys don't let people die without being liable.

I'm sure if the company found out on their first notice, this would have all been avoided.

Of course, but that did not happen. What happened was their technician who they pay, found out at that time, and he then left the power cut and thereby left the woman to die.

 

[Darkdante]

you Democrats should be happy!

Now thats hittin below the belt.

Most illnesses are self-inflicted if you look at it as the person does not take care of themselves, eat right etc....... But thats besides the point, if you have an illness, you should be able to get treatment.

In the future with all the new advancements in medicine I suspect you'll see alot more of stuff like this. The reason it's not common now is because only fairly recently are people able to take machines like this home, normally they would have had to stay in the hospitol where dumb stuff like this would not happen.

And the people holding responsibility hold it because thats the way society as a whole see's it. It's fairly easy to tell what you should do, and be responsible for, when it comes to society judging you, all you need to do is look at history. But when you confuse your own values with those of the general public, this is where the lawsuits come in, to set you straight.

Just because you think the bitch deserves to die, does not mean society will let you get away with killing her. EVen if she's gonna die anyway.

 

[Artem]

The technician was informed before he left the premises, but he left anyway. What your trying to say is their technicians are too stupid to make critical decisions on thier own meaning if they kill someone in the line of duty it's not thier fault. Where in the world do you get this type of mentality?

And anyway, the company accepted responsibility so why even argue?



Exactly! This is why you accept responsibility OR better yet you don't cut the power in the first place. Kind of late to attempt to look humane after the lady is dead huh?



Wrong. The State already stated its position, which is why the company is so quick to accept responsibility, it knows it would lose.

If the company thought it wasn't liable do you think they would publicy accept responsibility already? Come on now...........

"State Owned Enterprises Minister Trevor Mallard said there were reports the family had been warned about the overdue account.
"The correct authority to investigate this and sort out the facts is the police," Mallard said, adding the government would expect "full accountability" if the company was found to be culpable."



I agree with you. But your not being realistic. You want something to be based on your own set of values without taking into account what happens in the real world. In the real world companys don't let people die without being liable.



Of course, but that did not happen. What happened was their technician who they pay, found out at that time, and he then left the power cut and thereby left the woman to die.

Notice how there is an *if* in the part you bolded.

The mentality you are arguing here is like saying that if a someone walks into McDonald's and asks the guy behind the counter for some free food, because that person hasn't eaten in 5 days. The guy refuses just as he is instructed to do under any circumstances. The hungry guy dies outside from lack of nourishment. I guess it's McDonald's worker's fault for not believing the guy, huh?

Let's just make it a big happy place where no one ever takes responsibility for their own actions and just blames the guys with the money.

 

[Darkdante]

Notice how there is an *if* in the part you bolded.

Sure there is, but there is one in your argument also. Arnt' we arguing "if's"?

The mentality you are arguing here is like saying that if a someone walks into McDonald's and asks the guy behind the counter for some free food, because that person hasn't eaten in 5 days. The guy refuses just as he is instructed to do under any circumstances. The hungry guy dies outside from lack of nourishment. I guess it's McDonald's worker's fault for not believing the guy, huh?

Wrong circumstance.

In your example situation, the clerk did not cause the guy to be in his "dire circumstance". While yes society would expect him to "render aid" in your example situation, this would require his action, which not everyone would hold him responsible for if he did nothing, but would probably look down upon him
.
Look at the situation where the technician is in. The tech caused the "dire circumstance" with his action. Theres a difference here.

If you want it to be the same, the McDonald's clerk would have to mistakenly lock the hungry guy into a basement and thereby deny him nourshiment. Then after finding the hungry guy alive in the basement 5 days later requesting for food the Mcdonalds clerk would then leave him there again to die.

McDonalds would then obviously be sued.

Let's just make it a big happy place where no one ever takes responsibility for their own actions and just blames the guys with the money.

This sounds familiar, ever read the newspaper?

 

[Zerayla]

Let's just make it a big happy place where no one ever takes responsibility for their own actions and just blames the guys with the money.

Or we could just follow our own morals and do whats right. Not everyone would have given the "starving man" a free burger, but I can bet you there'd be someone with a heart who would of given him a couple of dollars seeing that he was actually wanting food, and not drugs.

When it is within your power to help someone else, you should do it. Period.

That's whats wrong with the world today, we're so concerned with furthering ourselves that the majority of people can't be bothered to do a good deed for someone else.

That technician SHOULD have hesitated and maybe contacted his supervisor to say "Hey, the situation here is a little complicated. This lady is on a breathing machine". At that point, i'm sure that the "higher-ups" would of had to do some investigating, especially if they had rules like most other electricity companies that do not allow the power to be cut in situations like this.

That technician had a choice, and unfortunately he "did what he was told". I know that most people aren't willing to risk their jobs but really, when it comes down to something like this where you have some pretty decent evidence that someone's life is on the line... you do what's right.

If I had been in that technician's shoes, I would of refused. I know what a breathing machine is, and if I had been shown one then I could of easily put "1+1" together and figured out "Oh hey, she needs that to live on, oh and hey... its run on the electricity i'm about to remove". I'm not about to let money shape the kind of person I am.

 

[Cecilee]

We can assume all we want but the fact of the matter is, we all know had they been well informed and if the family was using the proper channels that everyone else seems to be using perfectly fine, she wouldn't have died.

Slightly less of an assumption can't simply be hailed as fact by citing a we all that doesn't even exist. You give beaureaucracies too much credit. It is by no means a fact until the police report comes out. Things slip through the cracks. Things aren't taken seriously. And in the rare occasion, things are ignored.

The mentality you are arguing here is like saying that if a someone walks into McDonald's and asks the guy behind the counter for some free food...

Not an appropriate analogy. You focus on the idea that food is a necessity while ignoring the idea that McDonalds is a private enterprise, not a utility company. McDonalds has to compete as a business. The utility does not. McDonalds can go bankrupt. The utility cannot. There are hundreds of food outlets. There is one power company. McDonalds is also well-known among the homeless population for giving out free food. Probably one of the best track records for that kind of work among restaurants. A veteran hobo doesn't even walk into a McDonalds except for coffee, which he sometimes pays for, sometimes doesn't. There are better places to eat for free, because as you point out, food is a necessity and no community will deny someone that. We do not let our homeless starve, and we do not let our people die from lack of water or electricity. That's just one of those things that we decided as a community that we wouldn't do. This isn't Zimbabwe. We are not third world machete.

 

[Strid]

Slightly less of an assumption can't simply be hailed as fact by citing a we all that doesn't even exist. You give beaureaucracies too much credit. It is by no means a fact until the police report comes out. Things slip through the cracks. Things aren't taken seriously. And in the rare occasion, things are ignored.

Unfortunatly for this quote, the track record proves otherwise. Really, as no one has even seemed to notice the question, how often do these kind of deaths occur? You've got to stop dodging it because you can't argue around a question like that.

 

[Cecilee]

It happens rarely, but that doesn't excuse it when it happens. It certainly happens more than you personally think, which is the only thing you're flying by. The people these things happen to are underrepresented. Someone who is putting effort into detecting them would never even hear the vast majority of cases. Old veterans and bedridden infirm die quietly and alone. If you don't have a voice, you don't get heard. They apparently happen enough so that in Michigan it is not legal to cut power to any home from the start of winter until mid spring. Apparently happens enough so that seniors' power cannot be cut for a full month after the general populations'. And that's just all-comers. Not just sick people.

If your beaureaucracy was so good at detecting these things and listening to their customers, then what's with all these laws? You would be wise to never trust a corporate machine to follow through with even the simplest of things. They could literally be there watching you die and still drop the ball, case in point.

Funny aside: in Texas the primary utilities are allowed by the state to drop customers who are having trouble paying, then defer them to a "provider of last resort." Sounds all touchy-feely until it comes out that these companies charge those with proven financial difficulty MORE than their old provider. After all, now they have bad credit. Stellar job, TX. Makin us proud.

One can only hope that senior citizens are better at surviving heatstroke than COPD without oxygen support.

 

[Strid]

It happens rarely, but that doesn't excuse it when it happens. It certainly happens more than you personally think, which is the only thing you're flying by. The people these things happen to are underrepresented. Someone who is putting effort into detecting them would never even hear the vast majority of cases. Old veterans and bedridden infirm die quietly and alone. If you don't have a voice, you don't get heard. They apparently happen enough so that in Michigan it is not legal to cut power to any home from the start of winter until mid spring. Apparently happens enough so that seniors' power cannot be cut for a full month after the general populations'. And that's just all-comers. Not just sick people.

In Michigan it's cold from that time period, very cold. Consider Michigan people fortunate to have such a loving provider. For Senior Citizens, that's just being nice. However, neither of these laws help your case. They don't prove anything at all happened to place them there. This story wouldn't have made it to the news if it had either a: ever happened before or b: happened often. It's just not news worthy otherwise. People die all the damn time, that's not why it's news worthy.

Without giving permission to dodge my top, I'd like to also ask about this quote:

Funny aside: in Texas the primary utilities are allowed by the state to drop customers who are having trouble paying, then defer them to a "provider of last resort." Sounds all touchy-feely until it comes out that these companies charge those with proven financial difficulty MORE than their old provider. After all, now they have bad credit. Stellar job, TX. Makin us proud.

What's wrong with this? First off, if you can't pay the bills, you don't sign up for the service so of course it's going to cost you, just like a loan does. Should the state of Texas also buy everyone who is homeless a house too? I think not. Also, make no mistake as their is no difference between what I just asked and what you're calling them out on. You don't need either to survive.

And as I said earlier to combat the "companies are teh evil" bullshit. They run a business to make money to provide for themselves, their families, their employees, and the employees families. If you're not helping them, they shouldn't help you. It's not their responsibility, nor should it be, to take care of people and keep them alive. People should be reponsible for their own outcomes, living situations, money problems, bill problems, EVERYTHING. Unfortunatly, that's often not the case. It's always someone elses fault, amirite?