White House: Bush to lift offshore drilling ban

[Balog]

and even at 60 degrees a home in the northeast goes through an amazing amount of oil.

But still less than it would at 70+, which is the entire point when you have limited funds.  Kind of like driving, you reduce the amount you drive so you only have to buy gas once a week if you can't afford to fill the tank every other day.  Or, you use all your gas in two days and do without...

Chris

Unless you can't afford to even drive to the local park and ride to bus in to work. Why are you assuming poor elderly people on fixed incomes would be able to afford a cold winter at 60? Sure it would use less fuel, but there is no guarantee it would reduce the consumption to a level they could afford.

Some people will freeze to death if they aren't able to heat their homes adequately.  Elderly and the frail will indeed suffer.  There is nothing asinine about it.

They'll freeze at 60degrees?  The Elderly have a higher freezing point?  Interesting, I was unaware.  As for them suffering, yes, they will, but less than if they burned their finite quantity of fuel more rapidly trying to maintain an unreasonable (for their budget) level of heat.

Chris

They may not literally freeze, but being cold all the time does make one more vulnerable to illness. And if your immune system is already weakened from being old......

[mtnbkr]

What's your point?  I'm not suggesting this as a solution if there are better solutions.  I'm saying it is something that can be done if the ONLY OTHER CHOICE IS RUNNING OUT OF FUEL SOONER.

I'm not saying they should do this rather than drill for oil.  I'm not saying they should do this for any ideological concept of conservation.  I'm saying this is something they might have to do if the only alternative is burning their fuel sooner. 

This all started with Maned's statement that people were going to freeze to death this Winter.  Yes, that might be the case if they can't afford fuel and burn up their limited reserve keeping the house at 72deg, but if they lower the temp to 60 (for example), they will stretch their fuel reserves further and not freeze.  They won't be happy or comfortable, but they won't freeze, which was the original claim.  Of course, the obvious solution is to increase the supply and reduce the price, but if that doesn't happen, then the only alternative is to reduce consumption to a point that you can remain thawed through the winter.

Chris

[yesitsloaded]

Remember the old days when people had blankets and wore sweaters inside. Really. Set it at 60 and bundle up. I would set it at 50 and wear two layers. Cost outlay for a good quilt and a sweater are more than made up in electric savings over the course of a winter. I guess the nasty heartless libertarian in me comes out when I think that families should actually take care of each other. Grandma can move in with you if she can't afford to fund herself. That's the way it used to be because it worked back then.

[Balog]

Chris: my point was that even at 60 (or 50 or 40) some people might run out of fuel before a long winter is over. We're not actually disagreeing here, I just rather dislike the "Nothing bad will happen, and if it does it's their own fault" attitude.

[yesitsloaded]

I'm going to admit I am ignorant of oil heating systems. What the usual cost of heating for the winter for the "average" place? If possible I would like the answer in units per winter and the cost of a unit from last year to this year. What is the difference in consumption from 70 to 50 degrees?

[mtnbkr]

Absolutely no clue as it's been nearly 30 years since I last lived in an oil furnace equipped house.

That said, the cost for heating my 3 story townhouse with gas runs from roughly $250 to keep it at 72+ down to $150 for 68-70deg in the middle of Winter (temps in the teens to 40s).  We cook and heat water with gas as well, so part of that bill is not related to heating the house.

Chris

[Ezekiel]

I just rather dislike the "Nothing bad will happen, and if it does it's their own fault" attitude.

Isn't this 100% the reason given -- here -- that carrying firearms is okay?  You know, personal responsibility?  That, if something bad happens, it's the USER, not the tool?

Can't have it both ways: if something bad happens, it is their fault, regardless of who "likes it."  They had ten billion opportunities, prior to freezing to death, to locate a solution.

[longeyes]

The individual gun owner does not control the cost of ammunition.

[Ezekiel]

The individual gun owner does not control the cost of ammunition.

He/she controls what is done with it, how much is used, what it is used for, and what occurs if it is rationed improperly.

[Balog]

I just rather dislike the "Nothing bad will happen, and if it does it's their own fault" attitude.

Isn't this 100% the reason given -- here -- that carrying firearms is okay?  You know, personal responsibility?  That, if something bad happens, it's the USER, not the tool?

Can't have it both ways: if something bad happens, it is their fault, regardless of who "likes it."  They had ten billion opportunities, prior to freezing to death, to locate a solution.

1. Not having a gun rarely results in death; not having heat in the winter will.

2. No one is suggesting .gov intervention, no is one is saying anything that would abrogate their responsibility.

The issue at hand is whether or not very high prices for heating oil will likely result in significant levels of mortality. I also object to treating impoverished older people like Darwin award candidates. I also object to saying that women who got raped were "asking for it" if they were doing something stupid prior to the assault. YMMV, I just think it's in poor taste.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I thought the question was whether a lack of winter heat could cause hardship, up to and including death, for some people.  The answer is that it clearly could. 

That doesn't lessen the responsibility of each resident to secure the means heat his home, if he wants a heated home. 

[Ezekiel]

The issue at hand is whether or not very high prices for heating oil will likely result in significant levels of mortality.

The answer is, of course, "no."

Unless said humans were flippin' idiots to begin with.

It's called planning...

[Balog]

Do you actually know any elderly people Zeke?

[longeyes]

Planning?

How many Americans have no savings of size, are one or two paychecks from living in their cars?

I see people more interested in queueing up at midnight to see Batman than learning how to take care of themselves, much less informing themselves about issues vital to their nation.

When the truckers stop delivering food to the markets because of exorbitant fuel costs, all bets are off.

[Ezekiel]

Do you actually know any elderly people Zeke?

Yes.  They can all pay their electric and/or gas bills.

"Personal accountability."

I see that we are desirous of applying that to firearm ownership, but nothing else.

[Ezekiel]

How many Americans have no savings of size, are one or two paychecks from living in their cars?

Whose fault is that?

[mtnbkr]

Yes.  They can all pay their electric and/or gas bills.

"Personal accountability."

I see that we are desirous of applying that to firearm ownership, but nothing else.

Has anyone suggested the elderly shouldn't do that?  All I've seen so far is concern that they might have trouble with their utility bills because of rising energy costs, not that they shouldn't continue to pay their bills.  If you recall, my suggestion was that they turn their heat down until they can reach a level they can continue to pay.

For example, my grandmother, who is in her early 80s, is spread thin these days.  She has been widowed for the past 30 years and has lived an independent life, working two jobs, putting money into savings and investments, etc.  She finally retired from her last job a few years ago (less than 10).  She still lives alone in her own home.  She was doing fine financially until she had some health problems and had to start taking an assortment of prescription drugs.  Combined with the increase in energy costs, she's in trouble now.  We (children, grandchildren, etc) help by buying gift cards to the local grocery stores, restaurants, etc to help (easier than money and ensures she spends it on her groceries rather than us).  My mom and aunt have payed her pharm bills several times.  If things get much more expensive, she's going to have real problems.

Chris

[Manedwolf]

Yes.  They can all pay their electric and/or gas bills.

"Personal accountability."

I see that we are desirous of applying that to firearm ownership, but nothing else.

Has anyone suggested the elderly shouldn't do that?  All I've seen so far is concern that they might have trouble with their utility bills because of rising energy costs, not that they shouldn't continue to pay their bills.  If you recall, my suggestion was that they turn their heat down until they can reach a level they can continue to pay.

For example, my grandmother, who is in her early 80s, is spread thin these days.  She has been widowed for the past 30 years and has lived an independent life, working two jobs, putting money into savings and investments, etc.  She finally retired from her last job a few years ago (less than 10).  She still lives alone in her own home.  She was doing fine financially until she had some health problems and had to start taking an assortment of prescription drugs.  Combined with the increase in energy costs, she's in trouble now.  We (children, grandchildren, etc) help by buying gift cards to the local grocery stores, restaurants, etc to help (easier than money and ensures she spends it on her groceries rather than us).  My mom and aunt have payed her pharm bills several times.  If things get much more expensive, she's going to have real problems.

Chris

FYI, you can give Target pharmacy giftcards, too, some people I know have been giving them to elderly relatives of theirs or even to charities. They look like a pill. They have to use Target pharmacy, of course.

[mtnbkr]

Yup, but she does all her business with a small local pharmacy because she's been going there longer than the current pharmacist has been alive and because they know her and her health issues.  They provide that small town personal service you only hear about in movies these days.  Target wouldn't do that.

They also know my mom and aunt, so it's no problem for them to call up, find out what she owes, and pay the bill for her.

Chris

[macpherson]

50-60 degrees?  I'll invite you to my house in sunny Minnesota when there's a -40F blizzard outside and then ask you if my house even feels inhabitable at 60 degrees, then explain how I'm supposed to care for my wife and daughter when they are wearing snowsuits all the time?  I try to keep the thermostat at 68-69 most of the time, but even then it's not very comfortable in the house.

[mtnbkr]

Ok, I'll type this slowly for for the reading impared.

My suggestion to turn the thermostat down to the 50-60 degree level was not intended for those who can afford to keep their heat at whatever temperature they deem comfortable.  It was suggested only for people who's financial situation would not enable them to heat their home all winter at their preferred temperature.  Rather than using up their budgeted amount of fuel (oil, gas, etc) in a month at, say, 72deg, they could potentially run longer at a lower temperature.

If you can afford to heat your home to 72deg (or whatever you choose) all winter, by all means do it.  If you can't afford to do so, you might consider turning it down to 68, 60, even 50deg to meet your budget. 

Now, was that so hard to understand?

Chris

[Ezekiel]

And, 50 degrees does NOT mean "death."

Seems easy to understand.

[Firethorn]

And, 50 degrees does NOT mean "death."

Seems easy to understand.

Well, it could, for a frail enough person - but I'd ask how much longer they would of lasted anyways?   It's like looking at how many heart attacks are caused by taking the stairs.  The heart attack would of occured regardless - the stairs just happened to be the trigger in that case.  It could of as easily been the visit to the mall scheduled for the next day.

But a person that frail should be in some sort of institution, I think, that has extra capability to maintain the heat.  Even if not, between space heaters to heat the room the person is actually in, combined with electric blankets and such, it shouldn't be too bad.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Cool temperatures tend to put the frail at increased risk for catching various illnesses and infections, many of which can be fatal.

[K Frame]

And, 50 degrees does NOT mean "death."

Seems easy to understand.

Actually, it can for the elderly.

Chronic low-grade hypothermia is insidious and can be deadly.




"Whose fault is that?"

Well, let's see, Zeke.

Whose fault is it that people who have been retired for a number of years are finding that their monthly retirement/pension and social security incomes aren't able to keep up because in the last 10 years gasoline and heating oil have quadrupled in price?

Whose fault is it that for quite a few, the pensions and accounts that they worked so hard to amass over their careers evaporated when the employers raided the retirement accounts or simply went belly up?

That's right, it's those pesky old people. They should have had the foresight to get into highly paid vocations when they were young (instead, say, the ministry, teaching, or the like) and should have died off already.