Democratic confusion: no to emergency security measures, yes to thermostat control

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't see the difference. Your compliance is mandatory either way. If you don't comply you face a fine. If they put a chip in your thermostat you could not comply by defeating the chip or installing an old thermostat.

you shouldn't have the heat up so high, we're putting in a box to turn it down
you shouldn't drive so fast, we're putting in a box to govern your speed

what's next?

you shouldn't ........ eat junk? smoke? mow your lawn? They're working on those, too.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So a box set up on the power junction off your property would be ok?

It's the box being on your property that you have a problem with?

no, it's the box controlling my house

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

And people say government healthcare would be cheaper... at least insurance companies want to see what they're spending their money on and they keep records.

And they turn people down for lifesaving treatment because it hurts their bottom line.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

And they turn people down for lifesaving treatment because it hurts their bottom line.

I can't think of a single universal healthcare system in the world who doesn't also turn people down for lifesaving treatment due to cost... which is why they come here.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

you shouldn't have the heat up so high, we're putting in a box to turn it down
you shouldn't drive so fast, we're putting in a box to govern your speed

what's next?

you shouldn't ........ eat junk? smoke? mow your lawn? They're working on those, too.

Slippery slope FTL

It's not just that you shouldn't do those things. In this case, this is not for your health. The public utilities will literally fail unless we cut power usage. There is an immediate and serious threat to the public welfare that would effect literally every person in the state which would shut down everything from police stations to traffic signals, to shopping malls. etc. that problem was previously handled by simply cutting power which is a very bad solution. This is the most efficient and least intrusive method to fix it. instead of cutting all power to your home, they reduce overall power consumption by effecting only one non-essential system in your home. They could alternately just tell everyone to turn thier A/C off during the emergency and then drive around handing out fines for people who don't comply.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I can't think of a single universal healthcare system in the world who doesn't also turn people down for lifesaving treatment due to cost... which is why they come here.

I have never heard of a government with a universal system turning someone down for a lifesaving treatment because it would hurt their profits.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Slippery slope FTL

It's not just that you shouldn't do those things. In this case, this is not for your health. The public utilities will literally fail unless we cut power usage. There is an immediate and serious threat to the public welfare that would effect literally every person in the state which would shut down everything from police stations to traffic signals, to shopping malls. etc. that problem was previously handled by simply cutting power which is a very bad solution. This is the most efficient and least intrusive method to fix it. instead of cutting all power to your home, they reduce overall power consumption by effecting only one non-essential system in your home.

You do realize it is because the gov't creates an artificial price for energy don't you? They cap what it can be.

So the price can't rise correctly in the high energy season to limit power consumption, so there is no incentive to efficiently use power.

It is just another example of gov't gone wrong. Price caps are a massive failure and this is just another example.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I have never heard of a government with a universal system turning someone down for a lifesaving treatment because it would hurt their profits.

No, they do it because they have to ration the care. If you are to old and "not worth saving" you get denied.

Granted, it does happen here as well.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Slippery slope FTL

it's only a fallacy if it's not really happening

........ by effecting only one non-essential system in your home.

For now.

They could alternately just tell everyone to turn thier A/C off during the emergency and then drive around handing out fines for people who don't comply.

in short, I'm sick of the govt shoving its hand in my wallet, then my car, then my health care, now my house.

I really don't give a shit if it's "the most efficient" but I'll never think it's the "least intrusive method." They are forcing their way in your house. How is that not intrusive?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I have never heard of a government with a universal system turning someone down for a lifesaving treatment because it would hurt their profits.

They do it for rationing purposes and simply cost purposes saying it's too expensive. It happens all the time...

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

it's only a fallacy if it's not really happening

For now.

in short, I'm sick of the govt shoving its hand in my wallet, then my car, then my health care, now my house.

I really don't give a shit if it's "the most efficient" but I'll never think it's the "least intrusive method." They are forcing their way in your house. How is that not intrusive?

I'm with you on this one. I'm surprised that Lou is all for it. I mean, this is their "answer" to the rolling brownout problem? What about more Nuclear power plants? Are they installing any windfarms or are liberal groups taking them to court to stop them there like they are in TX and Mass?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I'm with you on this one. I'm surprised that Lou is all for it. I mean, this is their "answer" to the rolling brownout problem? What about more Nuclear power plants? Are they installing any windfarms or are liberal groups taking them to court to stop them there like they are in TX and Mass?

I don't see this as any different than having a town/city employee knock on my door one day to say "The rest of your neighbors need more electricity so I'm going to come in and turn off some of your shit and put a box on it so we know when it's on and can turn it back off."

Honestly, who would be ok with that?


AND!

People are ignoring that even they say this is all for something they say happens "very rarely, once every few years".

Did everyone miss that? They want to put this HUGE infrastructure in place for something that happens once every few years!

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

They do it for rationing purposes and simply cost purposes saying it's too expensive. It happens all the time...

So it's a lack of resources rather than an attempt to keep shareholders happy.

[Simius]

My parents have a voluntary switch on their air conditioner that the utility company can shut off if there is a power crunch. As a benefit to them... they get a discount on their electricity bills. That sort of thing would make more sense to me....

But if people are running their AC at 65 while there are rolling brown outs and others can't have AC at all so their house warms up to 90... that makes no sense at all. Especially when everyone could have had power if everyone kept their thermostat at 70 or 75 or whatever.

Hmm... maybe the utilities should put a switch in allowing them to limit electricity use of each household to X amount per hour. If you go over that amount, it cuts your power. That way those who want to set their thermostat at 65 can do so... but when they use up more than their share of electricity during emergency times, they'll just be cut off entirely.


<everyone who is going to flame... my first paragraph is the only part I'd support... voluntary off switches for AC with a cash incentive for whoever took it>

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

I don't see this as any different than having a town/city employee knock on my door one day to say "The rest of your neighbors need more electricity so I'm going to come in and turn off some of your shit and put a box on it so we know when it's on and can turn it back off."

Honestly, who would be ok with that?


AND!

People are ignoring that even they say this is all for something they say happens "very rarely, once every few years".

Did everyone miss that? They want to put this HUGE infrastructure in place for something that happens once every few years!

I'm sure they will raise their energy and other taxes to afford this plan as well. Imagine the millions in cost just to purchase the units and have them all installed. Holy fuck.

36 million people live in CA. These units will cost at least $10 a pop. Probably more like $50-100 but I'm going low. So that is $360,000,000 plus an hour labor for each house with a city employee making $20+ an hour so add another $720,000,000 to that. Now we are at over a BILLION dollars already. My God.....

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

So it's a lack of resources rather than an attempt to keep shareholders happy.

If you consider money a resource, sure. And there's a reason there's a lack of resources in other areas as well. That reason is simply because it's government run and they can't keep up with the costs/demands.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I'm with you on this one. I'm surprised that Lou is all for it. I mean, this is their "answer" to the rolling brownout problem? What about more Nuclear power plants? Are they installing any windfarms or are liberal groups taking them to court to stop them there like they are in TX and Mass?

I'm not really all for it. It's a strange solution but I don't think it's a bad one given the alternatives. I would actually rather see it as a temporary solution tied to building new clean powerplants like wind and nuclear. They already intrude into your home by turning off all of your power. This way they just turn off power to one system and they don't really even turn it off. They just reduce it's operating time.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm not really all for it. It's a strange solution but I don't think it's a bad one given the alternatives. I would actually rather see it as a temporary solution tied to building new clean powerplants like wind and nuclear. They already intrude into your home by turning off all of your power. This way they just turn off power to one system and they don't really even turn it off. They just reduce it's operating time.

And you are ok with them raising more than a $billion in taxes for something that happens maybe once a year?