|
Some services are just not well-suited for privatization, this being one of them.
|
On October 05 2010 22:17 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:15 comis wrote:On October 05 2010 22:10 Seam wrote:On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger). His house burned down. Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault. Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy. Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation. Indeed. Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself. Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE. Right, right, I forgot you could only grab doorknobs with your bear hands, and couldn't get any kind of gloves or cloth to put over them. Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:17 jtype wrote:
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take" He had the money =\
Imagine it was you in that situation. Imagine that, for whatever reason, you didn't pay the fee, for any one of the reasons I listed above. Wouldn't you say something like that if your house was burning down and the fire brigade that you had called out to help you were just standing and watching?
Even if you didn't have the money, wouldn't you promise it to them if you thought that it would save your house and belongings?
Even if you didn't pay the fee out of negligence/stupidity, wouldn't you realise your mistake and want to be given a chance, considering they were right there in front of you and your burning house?
People are so quick to make judgements about a person that they know nothing about.
|
On October 05 2010 22:25 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:17 Seam wrote:On October 05 2010 22:15 comis wrote:On October 05 2010 22:10 Seam wrote:On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger). His house burned down. Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault. Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy. Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation. Indeed. Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself. On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE. Right, right, I forgot you could only grab doorknobs with your bear hands, and couldn't get any kind of gloves or cloth to put over them. On October 05 2010 22:17 jtype wrote:
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take" He had the money =\ Imagine it was you in that situation. Imagine that, for whatever reason you didn't pay the fee, for any one of the reasons I listed above. Wouldn't you say something like that if your house was burning down and the fire brigade that you had called out to help you were just standing and watching? Even if you didn't have the money, wouldn't you promise it to them if you thought that it would save your house and belongings? Even if you didn't pay the fee out of negligence/stupidity, wouldn't you realise your mistake and want to be given a chance, considering they were right there in front of you and your burning house? People are so quick to make judgements about a person that they know nothing about.
I've BEEN in a situation were I had a house burning down. The difference is there wasn't a fire department close enough to get out to where I lived in time.
What did I do? First thing I did was get the horses out, and kicked in the doors so the dogs could get out.
I was 15 at the time.(I'm bad at remembering numbers it seems)
Would I have asked for their help if they were there? Yes. But I would realize what a retard I was and do what I could alone.
|
On October 05 2010 14:35 Ecrilon wrote:
Should probably have just accepted extraordinarily high payment instead of letting the house burn. Those things are expensive.
But seriously - it would have had to be VERY high. Somebody above said something about charging the guy triple, which would be a complete joke. People in that town are buying insurance for $75, because even if it's very unlikely that their house catches fire this year, it's worth paying to stop that small possibility of disaster. Once the house is actually on fire, fire protection is no longer worth $75ish to the guy - it's worth the entire cost of his house, since that's what he'll lose without their help. If a last minute deal were going to happen, they should hit him for at LEAST the entire cost of the truck / firefighters being there (probably quite expensive) and I'd call them justified in charging basically anything (up to the cost of the house, of course).
Also, people should stop acting like it matters that they were nearby. This is a big decision in either direction; "well, they were already in the neighborhood" is not a justification that should matter.
|
On October 05 2010 14:23 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:21 FabledIntegral wrote:
Honestly... I kinda agree. Otherwise it just goes to show you can not pay the fee and still get the protection when the fire happens. Or they could have put it out for $7500, saved the man's house, and still sent the same message. Honestly though, this is why funding for the fire department should come from the city, which collects from people through land taxes, rather than each entity collecting separately for each thing. A fire department shouldn't be run like the cable company.
Yeah I am just confused how this happened (could really listen to audio)
Only thing I could think of is that it was out of the city limits, and this is bumfuck TN. But even still, at least around here, other towns and cities don't even hesitate to help if needed.
|
In Denmark taxes pay for our hospital, police and fire-fighter services... I like Denmark... 
Honestly, if this ever occurred in my vicinity I would be disgusted, sure he is a dumb-ass who deserved what he got, but ultimately it is the country's fault as a whole for letting such a crucial service being 'optional'.
|
You're missing the point, it's not the private company's job to be sympathetic to some guy that isn't their client and it would ruin their business to save his house because immediately everyone stops paying the monthly fee when they realize they can switch to per-incident.
We're not judging the person at all, we're saying that if they save this man's house they have a lot of problems worth more than this man's house that they will incur. Is it their fault for not saving his house at the expense of their jobs?
|
Obviously taxes are a better system and that's what it is in most of America btw.
|
On October 05 2010 22:31 blipster8 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 14:35 Ecrilon wrote:
Should probably have just accepted extraordinarily high payment instead of letting the house burn. Those things are expensive. But seriously - it would have had to be VERY high. Somebody above said something about charging the guy triple, which would be a complete joke. People in that town are buying insurance for $75, because even if it's very unlikely that their house catches fire this year, it's worth paying to stop that small possibility of disaster. Once the house is actually on fire, fire protection is no longer worth $75ish to the guy - it's worth the entire cost of his house, since that's what he'll lose without their help. If a last minute deal were going to happen, they should hit him for at LEAST the entire cost of the truck / firefighters being there (probably quite expensive) and I'd call them justified in charging basically anything (up to the cost of the house, of course). Also, people should stop acting like it matters that they were nearby. This is a big decision in either direction; "well, they were already in the neighborhood" is not a justification that should matter.
It's not fire insurance, it's payment for fire services. $75 annually IS the cost.
|
On October 05 2010 22:28 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:25 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 22:17 Seam wrote:On October 05 2010 22:15 comis wrote:On October 05 2010 22:10 Seam wrote:On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger). His house burned down. Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault. Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy. Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation. Indeed. Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself. On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE. Right, right, I forgot you could only grab doorknobs with your bear hands, and couldn't get any kind of gloves or cloth to put over them. On October 05 2010 22:17 jtype wrote:
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take" He had the money =\ Imagine it was you in that situation. Imagine that, for whatever reason you didn't pay the fee, for any one of the reasons I listed above. Wouldn't you say something like that if your house was burning down and the fire brigade that you had called out to help you were just standing and watching? Even if you didn't have the money, wouldn't you promise it to them if you thought that it would save your house and belongings? Even if you didn't pay the fee out of negligence/stupidity, wouldn't you realise your mistake and want to be given a chance, considering they were right there in front of you and your burning house? People are so quick to make judgements about a person that they know nothing about. I've BEEN in a situation were I had a house burning down. The difference is there wasn't a fire department close enough to get out to where I lived in time. What did I do? First thing I did was get the horses out, and kicked in the doors so the dogs could get out. I was 15 at the time.(I'm bad at remembering numbers it seems) Would I have asked for their help if they were there? Yes. But I would realize what a retard I was and do what I could alone.
It's commendable that you did what you did, in that situation, but it's not the same situation at all. If you'd called the fire brigade and they said that they were coming and on arrival didn't do anything, that would have been completely different to not being able to turn up at all.
He might have waited on their arrival and then, upon realising that they weren't going to do anything, might have realised that the fire was too much for him to handle alone. He might have just been so overwhelmed by the fact that he was being treated in this way, not quite believing that they were just going to watch his house burn to the ground, that he didn't think to take action.
There's really no point in comparing yourself to that guy. What if he had a profound fear of fire? What if he just panicked and didn't know what to do? Again, don't make snap judgements about people.
|
On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 05 2010 22:13 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:12 comis wrote:On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger). Not to mention they essentially murdered his 3 dogs and his cat. Michael Vick is bad? These "firefighters" are the fucking anti-pet SS. I was under the impression it doesn't take a firefighter to open a door and let animals out of a house. I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE.
Except it took two hours for the fire to get from the barrels to the house, pretty sure they should have got the pets out, but expected the fire department to come save them.
I still want to know what person in this family set the fire without any type of fire break and why they're not getting a large portion of the blame for the whole situation.
|
On October 05 2010 22:36 jtype wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:28 Seam wrote:On October 05 2010 22:25 jtype wrote:On October 05 2010 22:17 Seam wrote:On October 05 2010 22:15 comis wrote:On October 05 2010 22:10 Seam wrote:On October 05 2010 22:06 spinesheath wrote:On October 05 2010 21:55 DND_Enkil wrote:
Please note, i say property not lives. Staying at the sidelines watching if lives are at stake would be another matter totally. But property, he had the option to pay to have his house protected and choose not to, why should i risk my job to clean up his mistake? Because it's not as simple as that? If he loses his house, chances are he has not much of worth left. Expect one more guy who lives in a car or the sewers. One more guy who is reliant on welfare (high cost for the welfare system) or has to commit crimes to survive (putting his or other's lives in danger), or runs a high risk of catching illnesses due to low hygiene (putting his life in danger). His house burned down. Chances are he had insurance to cover it. Unless he was too cheap for that too. Inwhich case, again, it's his own damn fault. Nobody is saying it's not "his own damn fault". We're saying a handful of human beings stood feet away with the power to rectify this guy's life-altering mistake. The city wouldn't have fucking fired them, (and if they did they'd have some kind of ridiculous lawsuit on their hands). Worst case scenario, they put out the fire, they charge the guy a huge amount considering he wasn't a card-carrying-fire-protection-cartel-participant, and everyone goes on happy. Instead a group of douchebags watched a man lose everything. That's unacceptable no matter how many people here want to argue the absolutes of the situation. Indeed. Lose everything, because he was stupid and didn't think he needed protection. He'll have a house back if he wasn't too stupid to get insurance, and his animals would have lived if he let them out.Again, it's not worth risking your job and your families well being to help someone too stupid to help himself. On October 05 2010 22:16 comis wrote:
I was under the impression that doorknobs can get pretty hot in the middle of A FUCKING FIRE. Right, right, I forgot you could only grab doorknobs with your bear hands, and couldn't get any kind of gloves or cloth to put over them. On October 05 2010 22:17 jtype wrote:
It could even go deeper than that. People are calling him out as a 'retard' for not paying the fee, but there could be a million and one reasons he didn't pay the fee. Maybe he couldn't afford it. Maybe he got completely screwed over by someone and now is in a crazy amount of debt. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he didn't get the reminder letter. Maybe the payment didn't process in time. Maybe he didn't pay because he didn't want to pay. Maybe he didn't pay because he thought he'd never have to call out the fire dept. The guy could be a real jerk and this might have been exactly what he deserved. He could have been the nicest guy in the world.
Whatever the case, it's not really important here. The fact is, I'm not defending this one guy in particular, I'm just expressing disagreement with the principle that's been shown up by the behaviour of the fire dept. in question and, on a more fundamental level, the policies that they're upholding.
This really was well written, and you have a point. The thing is he was willing to pay them "Whatever it would take" He had the money =\ Imagine it was you in that situation. Imagine that, for whatever reason you didn't pay the fee, for any one of the reasons I listed above. Wouldn't you say something like that if your house was burning down and the fire brigade that you had called out to help you were just standing and watching? Even if you didn't have the money, wouldn't you promise it to them if you thought that it would save your house and belongings? Even if you didn't pay the fee out of negligence/stupidity, wouldn't you realise your mistake and want to be given a chance, considering they were right there in front of you and your burning house? People are so quick to make judgements about a person that they know nothing about. I've BEEN in a situation were I had a house burning down. The difference is there wasn't a fire department close enough to get out to where I lived in time. What did I do? First thing I did was get the horses out, and kicked in the doors so the dogs could get out. I was 15 at the time.(I'm bad at remembering numbers it seems) Would I have asked for their help if they were there? Yes. But I would realize what a retard I was and do what I could alone. It's commendable that you did what you did, in that situation, but it's not the same situation at all. If you'd called the fire brigade and they said that they were coming and on arrival didn't do anything, that would have been completely different to not being able to turn up at all. He might have waited on their arrival and then, upon realising that they weren't going to do anything, might have realised that the fire was too much for him to handle alone. He might have just been so overwhelmed by the fact that he was being treated in this way, not quite believing that they were just going to watch his house burn to the ground, that he didn't think to take action. There's really no point in comparing yourself to that guy. What if he had a profound fear of fire? What if he just panicked and didn't know what to do? Again, don't make snap judgements about people.
I'm not making snap judgments.
I'm following what the article said, specifically that the fire spread slowly starting from something away from his house.
As for comparing myself to the guy, you're the one who told me to, which is why I did.
That said, even if you know the firefighters are coming, why would you NOT let your animals out? He had PLENTY of time, and people calling the Firefighters pet killers due to this are kinda ignorant of what went on.
Edit: And with that, I really need to sleep.
|
On October 05 2010 22:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Obviously taxes are a better system and that's what it is in most of America btw.
Well this could still be a tax. It just might be some really odd and archaic way of doing it.
Govts use all kind of crazy ways to alter the tax hike at the end of the year. For example, NJ has a cap of how much your property tax bill can go up each year (it used to be 4% and it's not 2.5 I believe, which goes real fast when you include contractual raises). To get around this, you either get a state waiver (get on your knees and blow the higher ups) or you get creative with your services.
For example, my city recently took sewer fees out of the tax bill and made it a separate payment. It's calculated outside of your normal tax bill. This means the state doesn't view it as a part of that 4% cap. I dont know because i didn't research, but there could be a similar situation there.
still dont make it any less shitty that they watched, but yeah
|
On October 05 2010 22:45 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Obviously taxes are a better system and that's what it is in most of America btw. Well this could still be a tax. It just might be some really odd and archaic way of doing it.
He wasn't being taxed because he was outside city limits.
The people in the city are taxed for it.
|
On October 05 2010 22:46 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 22:45 Hawk wrote:On October 05 2010 22:33 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Obviously taxes are a better system and that's what it is in most of America btw. Well this could still be a tax. It just might be some really odd and archaic way of doing it. He wasn't being taxed because he was outside city limits. The people in the city are taxed for it.
Yeah it could be a shared services thing because TN is just so sparsely populated (the county that he's in is 60 people per square mile per wiki.... that includes several different towns and cities)
Typically, you have to pay separately for shared services, whether its the homeowner, the city or whatever.
|
If this would happen in my country those "firefighters" would rot in prison for a very long time, and i am glad its that way. A person who can watch a house burning down and do nothing about it, does not deserve to be called firefighter. I would not want someone who cares so much about some random fee (which in most countries is payed via taxes anyway) to protect my home. And luckly i dont have to.
EDIT:
Honestly, what i find most disgusting, is the fact that so many of You find this acceptable or even support this barbaric behevior.
|
I totally agree with Silvanel here.
I mean really? You think this was okay? really? In germany you would have had the right to protect your home, so you could take over that fire equipment with violence and fight the fire yourself. If those firefighters were in Ireland or germany they would have gone to jail too... when you were able to save them from the crowd.
Humanity > 75 bucks...
feeling shamed for most of this guys here...
|
On October 05 2010 22:52 Silvanel wrote:
If this would happen in my country those "firefighters" would rot in prison for a very long time, and i am glad its that way. A person who can watch a house burning down and do nothing about it, does not deserve to be called firefighter. I would not want someone who cares so much about some random fee (which in most countries is payed via taxes anyway) to protect my home. And luckly i dont have to.
EDIT:
Honestly, what i find most disgusting, is the fact that so many of You find this acceptable or even support this barbaric behevior.
You get taxed for that. The guy that had his house burned down doesn't. It is a separate fee, and he did not pay it. Therefore, they didn't provide the service.....
Personally, I find this entire situation disgusting. The protection should be mandatory. But, because it isn't, the firefighters did the right thing.
I'm a believer that true capitalism screws the individual, and that true socialism ends up being stagnant, so a mix of the two is necessary for society to thrive. This type of situation simply reaffirms that belief, and lets me know that the USA is too capitalist still.....
|
On October 05 2010 17:24 Sanders wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2010 16:58 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 05 2010 16:44 Sanders wrote:
Where did this happen? Kazakhstan? Somalia? Niger?
... the USA?
There is nothing that can justify this sort of action... or inaction. This is a basic public service that should be provided to everybody no questions asked. I cannot see why such an important service should be provided in this way. It is something everybody needs and therefore should be provided from tax money to ensure that everybody is protected and bullshit like this doesn't happen.
A few years back, here in NZ, a power company shut off power to the house of a lady who was on life support because they failed to pay their power bills. She died, public outrage ensued, law change happened and we made an important fix to our system. I can only hope this leads to a fix in America's clearly flawed system. Well, couldn't you argue she should have planned her life better? What if the company is on the brink of bankruptcy and can't afford to give power to those who don't pay? I don't really see the "no questions asked" logic. I completely disagree. It's circumstantial. As many have pointed out, it's very similar to insurance. Unfortunately if you don't pay for it you aren't entitled to anything. Clearly she should have planned her life better. I mean, the plan to get on life support wasn't the smartest. The plan to not have enough money to be able to pay the power bill wasn't exactly a stroke of brilliance either. People make mistakes dude. The power company wasn't struggling and because of their decision a woman died. Sure, people who are struggling shouldn't expect to be provided with wine and caviar, but they should never be denied access to the most basic services; accommodation, food, power, healthcare, etc. Yes, and fire-safety. It's worth paying more than our share to ensure we don't have any Lazarus' sitting outside our door.
That's not the point. You're saying as a universal principle it should never be denied, so it should also be in the case even in a struggling company, correct? To the point where a company still might in certain (despite very unlikely) situations have to supply power to numerous clients that suddenly can't afford power for whatever reason, even if it propels the company into bankruptcy, destroys hundreds or thousands of jobs, and plummets an economy into an even deeper depression than it already is?
I just really dislike the entire concept of absolutes when it comes to economics, I honestly feel in today's age people are far too sympathetic with the consumer and want to blame the "big bad corporations" for everything. Don't get me wrong, a lot are selfish, etc. etc. but at the same time I always have a little less sympathy for those who plan their lives poorly.
Concerning this specific case of the woman dying, I feel like it definitely could have been handled better, although I'd have to know the specifics to comment more. I agree, I wouldn't have cut the power until exhausting all other alternatives (which I'm sure there were PLENTY) and being in an incredibly dire situation, which it sounds like neither happened/were the case. Anyways, the negative publicity probably hurt the company far more than the marginal amount they saved from letting the woman die.
|
Anyone who thinks that not helping out the guy when his house was going to burn was a good idea is a total douche bag. It doesn't matter if the guy forgot to pay or not, the fact of the matter is that they were there and could have saved the guys god damn house and chose not to. Congrats to all of those firefighters for just destroying someone's lively hood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
