This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Tommyknockers

  1. Ryan Mount says:

    Anything with the word “Bub” in it is a keeper.

  2. Chris Peterson says:

    Single payer, baby.

    And, never end a song in A Flat Minor.

  3. rl crabb says:

    Some years ago, I did a little online research on the Tommyknockers. I found one account that opined that the ‘Knockers were the spirits of Jewish slaves forced to work in the Cornish tin mines by the Romans. Could be that they’ll only accept kosher pasties.

  4. Greg Goodknight says:

    Bob, really nice use of canaries.

    The word is out… Saturday Night Live had it right… the national Obamacare web site really did only sign up 6 people the first day of operation.

    • Chris Peterson says:


      Not to mention the roll out of the original Medicare or Social Security. Single payer would be my choice of programs, but I’m not foolish enough to think that ANY roll out of this magnitude would be without it’s flaws.

      • Greg Goodknight says:

        Those earlier programs were problem free in comparison.

        “” isn’t plagued with glitches, it’s plagued by an ongoing design by committee, poor management of the design process, and the fundamental problems of the so called Affordable Care Act are being masked by all the comparatively superficial problems of the website rollout.

        One of the fundamental problems is the bait and switch that has been performed. Many people are only now finding out that they will not be able to keep their own plans despite liking them, are facing price increases not that $200 a month decrease they were told to expect, and their doctor isn’t a member on the plans they think they can afford. More would be outraged but in order to comparison shop, the website requires you to apply for the insurance first, providing intimate details of your life for government and private databases to store and correlate. Only then can you see what is available.

        Not exactly The Enlightenment, is it? But then the modern welfare state isn’t an outgrowth of classic liberalism, we have the Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck to thank for that.

        • Chris Peterson says:

          ” in order to comparison shop, the website requires you to apply for the insurance first.”

          Just one point, but nonetheless, not true. The ACA requires that you first create an account, entering your information, “to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage.” From what I understand, people making up to $45K@yr can receive subsidies. (I know, I know; that’s money better spent in the billions to companies like GE and Exxon, am I right?)
          And as far as your personal info; do you really think that there’s ANYTHING the NSA and others DON’T already know about you? Auto-filling your form should be offered on all federal websites. All you should have to do is fill in your SS# and BAM! You’re in.

          By the way, explaining how bad one program is does not prove your initial statement that it is worse than another was.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            And Martin Luther was the champion of independent interpretation, back in the day. I don’t think he gets enough credit for the changes his movement brought about.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            So, it’s OK to be asked for a financial proctoscopic disclosure just to find out what is being sold because they already have everything conceivable? Interesting. Sounds akin to ‘you should always submit to a search if you don’t have anything to hide’… sorry, I’ll stick with the 4th amendment.

            A site that allows all to browse all the policies should be available to anyone who wants to look *without* application. If “” doesn’t want to scare off applicants too much they could show both the full price and the maximum subsidized price with some idea of what income level goes with that maximum subsidy.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “I know, I know; that’s money better spent in the billions to companies like GE and Exxon, am I right?”

            Are you right? As usual, no, and you’ll not find anything I’ve written in the past suggesting GE or Exxon should get special treatment in either direction.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            Damn, boy, you take everything sooo literally. The NSA comment was meant as buffoonery, as was the comment on GE.

            You know, I’ve gone back through some of Bob’s archives, and you were a lot less serious back then. Wha’ happened? What I remember of you back in the day was that you were somewhat of a prankster. Miss that.

            Proctoscopic disclosure? Eeww!!

            Go to Geico, or other enterprising site, and try to get a quote on your car insurance w/o giving your info and driving record. Ain’t workin’; folks can’t quote you ’til you tell them some pertinent information.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “The NSA comment was meant as buffoonery, as was the comment on GE.”

            I apologize for not realizing you were a buffoon.

            In the future, don’t put words in my mouth unless you have a very good reason to think I have previously put them there myself.

            I have been in an insurance brokers office shopping for health insurance, and they have tables printed on paper (or did a decade ago) that gives prices based on age and smoking history. The software providers to have stated the gov’t website was going to allow such an anonymous browsing *before* any application as late as early September, a month before the scheduled live date, when the White House made a last minute change to their spec. A logical conclusion is they didn’t want too much bad news about prices to get out quickly.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            “I apologize for not realizing you were a buffoon.”

            I apologize for not realizing you weren’t.

            Buffoonery- behavior that is ridiculous but amusing.
            I’ll stop putting things in your mouth as soon as you stop pretending that everything’s an affront to your otherwise happy character. You can engage in buffoonery without actually being a buffoon. Try it sometime.
            Did you hear about the plastic surgeon that hung himself?
            And your insurance experience seems to be one of life insurance, not health. Age and smoking history will hardly suffice for Kaiser or Blue Cross, although that has somewhat changed, now that the ACA doesn’t allow discrimination for pre-existing conditions.
            Your “logical conclusion” assumes that others have your particular, if not peculiar, sense of logic.

          • Greg Goodknight says:

            “And your insurance experience seems to be one of life insurance, not health.”

            Assuming you aren’t again trying to be a buffoon , no, it was health insurance. And after trying to buy it, I was turned down because of a preexisting condition. I’d have been happy to buy it with that condition (treated and no longer a problem) not eligible for further expenditures but the Calfornia regulators, in their infinite wisdom, decreed insurers couldn’t do that, and California law forbade me from buying a policy from a state that thought partial insurance was better than no insurance at all.

            The preexisting condition problem could be handled without the destruction of insurance as we knew it. My particular preexisting condition was first discovered when I was covered by group nsurance, and I’d had continuous coverage until that point when I was denied; a simple portability clause could have handled my issue, and that of most people. I had to buy insurance from the guaranteed issue chart (again, easy to shop, with the tables printed in the same booklet) at over twice the price.

            When I was again covered by a group policy of an employer, they were then charged by a chart almost the same as the one Blue Shield forbade me from buying directly.

            Simple portability could have been the fix.

          • Chris Peterson says:

            I hope you’re not arguing from the standpoint of thinking that I’m a hardcore defender of the ACA, because I’m not.

            Much of this program seeks to remedy particular issues within the health care insurance system without addressing the system itself. I, and many others, took this President at his word that he would be behind a single payer system that circumvented the whole asinine insurance scheme and the farce that it has become. The whole horror-story, media propaganda ginned up by the industry itself is the real reason we’re not on par with the rest of the world in respect to health care. Those who can’t afford it are the same folks who are on food stamps because we allow people to be paid less than a living wage, and the rest of us are forced to pick up the slack via taxes; in effect, once again subsidizing the business community.
            The farther you push the bottom third of the populace down, the more those of us who still earn a living will have to pay. It’s not the particulars, it’s the system itself that must be changed. People shouldn’t be making money OFF of disease, they should be making money preventing and eradicating it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *