ROFL @ Glenn Beck

[jonks]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: smashp
And he is Wrong about history also

In his latest book he quotes the Constitution:

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

...then follows it up with a comment:

"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]"

Uh, Glen, this provision of the Constitution has to do with IMPORTATION, not IMMIGRATION. This provision gave the founding fathers a right to place an import tax on slaves.

It says "Migration or Importation"... seems to me it covers both immigration and slave trading.

Back to Beck being a douche from the future

Basic statutory intrepretation would tell us the following:

1. that the first clause states that Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting states from admitting either either immigrants or imported slaves

2. that the second clause regarding taxation applied only to "those Imported" (i.e. slaves) since it specifically omits Mirgration. This is not accident, it's statutory construction.

Essentially this clause was to comfort the slave states that importing slaves wouldn't be outlawed by the fed govt until 1808. And wouldn't ya know it, Jan 1, 1808 a federal law went into effect banning the importation of slaves. Those founding daddies were crafty.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Amused

Hey, dumbasses, I wasn't defending Beck, or his claims. ONLY that there WAS a Canadian Olympics that lost a billion dollars and that ANY claim that he was "seeing into the future" of the Vancouver Olympics was fucking ignorant when he obviously meant the Montreal Olympics. I found it rather funny how the blogger and OP couldn't figure this out because they have no knowledge of history nor did they even check out to see if there was an Olympics that lost a city a billion dollars.

I couldn't give two shits if Chicago gets the Olympics or not. I have no horse in this race. Nor do I care if the President lobbies for them.

I live in Vancouver and know full well about the debacle that was the Montreal Olympics. It certainly wasn't obvious to me that he meant Montreal. Why not? Well Vancouver is the most relevant olympic city right now, what with the event coming up. Second, the Montreal olympics happened a LONG time ago and are of only limited relevance to any discussion on olympic bids.

Beyond that, Montreal was just horribly mismanaged. There wasn't anything inherent in hosting an olympics that caused them to lose money. For example, the olympic stadium was designed and built pretty much without any blueprints, and the head architect was a real weirdo. Does that sound like a problem with the olympics themselves, or with having a bunch of tools for managers?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

One things for sure, if I didn't like somebody like you claim not to like Beck I sure as hell wouldn't go to the lengths you went too to defend him...but that's just me.

Some people stand on principle and are not just being partisan hacks, even if it means defending people they don't like.

So I take it you are not one of those people.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
Hey, dumbasses, I wasn't defending Beck, or his claims. ONLY that there WAS a Canadian Olympics that lost a billion dollars and that ANY claim that he was "seeing into the future" of the Vancouver Olympics was fucking ignorant when he obviously meant the Montreal Olympics. I found it rather funny how the blogger and OP couldn't figure this out because they have no knowledge of history nor did they even check out to see if there was an Olympics that lost a city a billion dollars.

I couldn't give two shits if Chicago gets the Olympics or not. I have no horse in this race. Nor do I care if the President lobbies for them.

You just thought you'd defend that douchebag Beck, got it.

Ah, no. I don't even like the guy.

But if you'd like to project your partisan hysteria onto me, okie dokie.

Sorry, we are not Amused.

That's for damn sure.

I know, we can be reasoned with.

One things for sure, if I didn't like somebody like you claim not to like Beck I sure as hell wouldn't go to the lengths you went too to defend him...but that's just me.

The blogger, the OP, the first couple of posters and yourself should be THANKING me.

It's not Beck I'm defending. I tried to show how the OP and blogger were completely mistaken and appearing woefully ignorant.

But hey, by all means, defend your ignorance by attempting to portray me as some kind of partisan or Beck lover. It makes you look as stupid as the idiots who got upset over "niggardly" and then angrily tried to defend their ignorant reaction to a perfectly innocent word.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused
The blogger, the OP, the first couple of posters and yourself should be THANKING me.

It's not Beck I'm defending. I tried to show how the OP and blogger were completely mistaken and appearing woefully ignorant.

But hey, by all means, defend your ignorance by attempting to portray me as some kind of partisan or Beck lover. It makes you look as stupid as the idiots who got upset over "niggardly" and then angrily tried to defend their ignorant reaction to a perfectly innocent word.

LOL what?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Meh, thats a pretty generous leap you're making on behalf of someone known to spout ridiculously easy to disprove (ie pulled out of his ass because it suits his conspiracy theory du jour) statements.

Even IF making that leap, you're still using one example from 30+ years ago when more recent examples suggest otherwise. Then again, they don't fit in with his particular agenda so of course he can't use those.

It's no leap. Not even a stretch. He simply got the name of a Canadian city wrong. There WAS a Canadian city that lost a billion on the Olympics, and that's what he was obviously refering to.

And it's not an example *I* am using, but he is using. I don't care either way. I don't live in Chicago.

It is a leap ... you're assuming that Beck is even remotely aware of an obscure statistic from 33 yrs ago, when he can't keep facts straight from this summer. Given his history, I'll continue to be skeptical. You can continue being .... gullible?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
The blogger, the OP, the first couple of posters and yourself should be THANKING me.

It's not Beck I'm defending. I tried to show how the OP and blogger were completely mistaken and appearing woefully ignorant.

But hey, by all means, defend your ignorance by attempting to portray me as some kind of partisan or Beck lover. It makes you look as stupid as the idiots who got upset over "niggardly" and then angrily tried to defend their ignorant reaction to a perfectly innocent word.

LOL what?

The reaction the OP/blogger had to Beck mistaking Vancouver for Montreal is as ignorant as the reaction the race baiters had to the word "Niggardly." Instead of looking up the facts, they knee jerked into stupidity.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
The blogger, the OP, the first couple of posters and yourself should be THANKING me.

It's not Beck I'm defending. I tried to show how the OP and blogger were completely mistaken and appearing woefully ignorant.

But hey, by all means, defend your ignorance by attempting to portray me as some kind of partisan or Beck lover. It makes you look as stupid as the idiots who got upset over "niggardly" and then angrily tried to defend their ignorant reaction to a perfectly innocent word.

LOL what?

The reaction the OP/blogger had to Beck mistaking Vancouver for Montreal is as ignorant as the reaction the race baiters had to the word "Niggardly." Instead of looking up the facts, they knee jerked into stupidity.

Hey he was just pointing out the Beck had made a mistake with his facts even if it's the name of a Canadian City, something he does rather frequently.But thank you for coming in and setting us straight:roll:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
The blogger, the OP, the first couple of posters and yourself should be THANKING me.

It's not Beck I'm defending. I tried to show how the OP and blogger were completely mistaken and appearing woefully ignorant.

But hey, by all means, defend your ignorance by attempting to portray me as some kind of partisan or Beck lover. It makes you look as stupid as the idiots who got upset over "niggardly" and then angrily tried to defend their ignorant reaction to a perfectly innocent word.

LOL what?

The reaction the OP/blogger had to Beck mistaking Vancouver for Montreal is as ignorant as the reaction the race baiters had to the word "Niggardly." Instead of looking up the facts, they knee jerked into stupidity.

Hey he was just pointing out the Beck had made a mistake with his facts even if it's the name of a Canadian City, something he does rather frequently.But thank you for coming in and setting us straight:roll:

No, he was making the claim that Back made up the whole thing. Not a simple mistaking one city name for another, but pulling the entire billion dollar loss out of his ass, which he did not.

Had he made fun of Beck for not knowing one Canadian city from another, I wouldn't be in this thread. But that's not what the blogger/OP did, now is it?

 

[Phokus]

The funny thing in all of this is how Amused pretends to not like Glenn Beck.

Even if Beck got the name of the city right, his point is still terrible considering it's one of the worst cases of cherry picked data points i've ever seen. Considering more recent Olympics, Montreal is at best an anomaly.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
The blogger, the OP, the first couple of posters and yourself should be THANKING me.

It's not Beck I'm defending. I tried to show how the OP and blogger were completely mistaken and appearing woefully ignorant.

But hey, by all means, defend your ignorance by attempting to portray me as some kind of partisan or Beck lover. It makes you look as stupid as the idiots who got upset over "niggardly" and then angrily tried to defend their ignorant reaction to a perfectly innocent word.

LOL what?

The reaction the OP/blogger had to Beck mistaking Vancouver for Montreal is as ignorant as the reaction the race baiters had to the word "Niggardly." Instead of looking up the facts, they knee jerked into stupidity.

Hey he was just pointing out the Beck had made a mistake with his facts even if it's the name of a Canadian City, something he does rather frequently.But thank you for coming in and setting us straight:roll:

No, he was making the claim that Back made up the whole thing. Not a simple mistaking one city name for another, but pulling the entire billion dollar loss out of his ass, which he did not.

Had he made fun of Beck for not knowing one Canadian city from another, I wouldn't be in this thread. But that's not what the blogger/OP did, now is it?

Like I posted earlier, we thank you for setting us straight:roll:

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus
The funny thing in all of this is how Amused pretends to not like Glenn Beck.

Even if Beck got the name of the city right, his point is still terrible considering it's one of the worst cases of cherry picked data points i've ever seen. Considering more recent Olympics, Montreal is at best an anomaly.

Pretends? He's a Morman psycho nutball. Why the fuck would I like him?

And yes, his point is awful. Not one I would make if I opposed the Olympics.

But nice try, Phokus. You see, unlike you, I actually AM independent and lean toward libertariansm. Unlike you did for years, I don't just claim I am while making partiasn arguments.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
The funny thing in all of this is how Amused pretends to not like Glenn Beck.

Even if Beck got the name of the city right, his point is still terrible considering it's one of the worst cases of cherry picked data points i've ever seen. Considering more recent Olympics, Montreal is at best an anomaly.

Pretends? He's a Morman psycho nutball. Why the fuck would I like him?

And yes, his point is awful. Not one I would make if I opposed the Olympics.

But nice try, Phokus. You see, unlike you, I actually AM independent and lean toward libertariansm. Unlike you did for years, I don't just claim I am while making partiasn arguments.

What's him being a Mormon have to do with him being a nutball?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
The funny thing in all of this is how Amused pretends to not like Glenn Beck.

Even if Beck got the name of the city right, his point is still terrible considering it's one of the worst cases of cherry picked data points i've ever seen. Considering more recent Olympics, Montreal is at best an anomaly.

Pretends? He's a Morman psycho nutball. Why the fuck would I like him?

And yes, his point is awful. Not one I would make if I opposed the Olympics.

But nice try, Phokus. You see, unlike you, I actually AM independent and lean toward libertariansm. Unlike you did for years, I don't just claim I am while making partiasn arguments.

What's him being a Mormon have to do with him being a nutball?

The two aren't exclusive, trust me. But even if he wasn't Mormon, he'd be a nutball.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
The funny thing in all of this is how Amused pretends to not like Glenn Beck.

Even if Beck got the name of the city right, his point is still terrible considering it's one of the worst cases of cherry picked data points i've ever seen. Considering more recent Olympics, Montreal is at best an anomaly.

Pretends? He's a Morman psycho nutball. Why the fuck would I like him?

And yes, his point is awful. Not one I would make if I opposed the Olympics.

But nice try, Phokus. You see, unlike you, I actually AM independent and lean toward libertariansm. Unlike you did for years, I don't just claim I am while making partiasn arguments.

Pretends? No, i was actually a libertarian. After actually READING about how economics really works, i decided libertarianism is almost as stupid as communism. This is why you get owned in debates. You need to stick to principle and you have to fight against reality when it doesn't conform to your principles.

This is why you need to use anecdotal 'evidence' in the face of scientific analysis when things don't quite go your way. You're like a child who still believes Santa Claus is real

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus
The funny thing in all of this is how Amused pretends to not like Glenn Beck.

Even if Beck got the name of the city right, his point is still terrible considering it's one of the worst cases of cherry picked data points i've ever seen. Considering more recent Olympics, Montreal is at best an anomaly.

Pretends? He's a Morman psycho nutball. Why the fuck would I like him?

And yes, his point is awful. Not one I would make if I opposed the Olympics.

But nice try, Phokus. You see, unlike you, I actually AM independent and lean toward libertariansm. Unlike you did for years, I don't just claim I am while making partiasn arguments.

Pretends? No, i was actually a libertarian. After actually READING about how economics really works, i decided libertarianism is almost as stupid as communism. This is why you get owned in debates. You need to stick to principle and you have to fight against reality when it doesn't conform to your principles.

This is why you need to use anecdotal 'evidence' in the face of scientific analysis when things don't quite go your way. You're like a child who still believes Santa Claus is real

Wow... The forum's biggest troll trying to educate me on objectivity?

That's a joke.

And for what it's worth, no biased, bought and paid for study in the world is going to make my own, and every other Vet I know change their mind about how horrible the VA is. Sorry. We know because we've actually had to DEAL with them. We've BEEN to their hospitals and clinics.

Have you? Nope.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused


Wow... The forum's biggest troll trying to educate me on objectivity?

That's a joke.

And for what it's worth, no biased, bought and paid for study in the world is going to make my own, and every other Vet I know change their mind about how horrible the VA is. Sorry. We know because we've actually had to DEAL with them. We've BEEN to their hospitals and clinics.

Have you? Nope.

And yet, other posters in that same thread said they were happy with the VA services (i believe one of them even said the VA saved his life).

If you still don't see why your anecdotes are completely worthless, then i'm sorry, but you're beyond hope, little boy

But please, educate me more about how the NEJM, annals of internal medicine, and rand corporation are all DNC shills and how i should trust the word of an anonymous internet person instead

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused


Wow... The forum's biggest troll trying to educate me on objectivity?

That's a joke.

And for what it's worth, no biased, bought and paid for study in the world is going to make my own, and every other Vet I know change their mind about how horrible the VA is. Sorry. We know because we've actually had to DEAL with them. We've BEEN to their hospitals and clinics.

Have you? Nope.

And yet, other posters in that same thread said they were happy with the VA services (i believe one of them even said the VA saved his life).

If you still don't see why your anecdotes are completely worthless, then i'm sorry, but you're beyond hope, little boy

But please, educate me more about how the NEJM, annals of internal medicine, and rand corporation are all DNC shills and how i should trust the word of an anonymous internet person instead

Phokus, you telling me the VA is high quality health care is about as absurd as me telling you the sky is brown. We can sit here and argue it all day long, but my decade plus experience with horrible VA care tells me far more than your total lack of experience and outcome based (and biased) studies.

Are there good VA hospitals? Maybe. I don't know. But I DO know the VA clinics and hospitals in the five states I have lived in have been miserable third world shithouses compared to private care or even miltary care.

BTW, why must you continue this argument over and over again?

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What's him being a Mormon have to do with him being a nutball?

Sooooo tempting, but I'll hold off.....

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What's him being a Mormon have to do with him being a nutball?

Sooooo tempting, but I'll hold off.....

Oh just run with it.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused


Wow... The forum's biggest troll trying to educate me on objectivity?

That's a joke.

And for what it's worth, no biased, bought and paid for study in the world is going to make my own, and every other Vet I know change their mind about how horrible the VA is. Sorry. We know because we've actually had to DEAL with them. We've BEEN to their hospitals and clinics.

Have you? Nope.

And yet, other posters in that same thread said they were happy with the VA services (i believe one of them even said the VA saved his life).

If you still don't see why your anecdotes are completely worthless, then i'm sorry, but you're beyond hope, little boy

But please, educate me more about how the NEJM, annals of internal medicine, and rand corporation are all DNC shills and how i should trust the word of an anonymous internet person instead

Phokus, you telling me the VA is high quality health care is about as absurd as me telling you the sky is brown. We can sit here and argue it all day long, but my decade plus experience with horrible VA care tells me far more than your total lack of experience and outcome based (and biased) studies.

Are there good VA hospitals? Maybe. I don't know. But I DO know the VA clinics and hospitals in the five states I have lived in have been miserable third world shithouses compared to private care or even miltary care.

BTW, why must you continue this argument over and over again?

Because i'm still in disbelief that there is a grown man such as yourself that thinks in such childlike ways.

Unlike you, i never used those positive anecdotes to 'prove' how good the VA is, i just used those positive anecdotes about the VA to prove how absurd it is to use anecdotes to evaluate a complex system like the VA in the first place.

Also, you still can't explain why YOUR anecdotes are valid, while the opinions of vets who praise the VA are invalid.

 

[Sclamoz]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused


Wow... The forum's biggest troll trying to educate me on objectivity?

That's a joke.

And for what it's worth, no biased, bought and paid for study in the world is going to make my own, and every other Vet I know change their mind about how horrible the VA is. Sorry. We know because we've actually had to DEAL with them. We've BEEN to their hospitals and clinics.

Have you? Nope.

And yet, other posters in that same thread said they were happy with the VA services (i believe one of them even said the VA saved his life).

If you still don't see why your anecdotes are completely worthless, then i'm sorry, but you're beyond hope, little boy

But please, educate me more about how the NEJM, annals of internal medicine, and rand corporation are all DNC shills and how i should trust the word of an anonymous internet person instead

Phokus, you telling me the VA is high quality health care is about as absurd as me telling you the sky is brown. We can sit here and argue it all day long, but my decade plus experience with horrible VA care tells me far more than your total lack of experience and outcome based (and biased) studies.

Are there good VA hospitals? Maybe. I don't know. But I DO know the VA clinics and hospitals in the five states I have lived in have been miserable third world shithouses compared to private care or even miltary care.

BTW, why must you continue this argument over and over again?

Sorry to hear you had bad experiences with the VA, but studies show them to be the best in the country.

In studies, including one by Harvard, and in six straight years of patient satisfaction surveys, the VA earned the highest health care quality rating in the country. It's also the least expensive.

The VA is also a bargain for taxpayers, and not just because of the computers. Doctors are salaried employees, which saves on labor. Drugs are cheaper because of negotiated discounts. Even with its older population, VA care overall costs 30 percent less than the national average.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...news/main2243606.shtml

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused


Wow... The forum's biggest troll trying to educate me on objectivity?

That's a joke.

And for what it's worth, no biased, bought and paid for study in the world is going to make my own, and every other Vet I know change their mind about how horrible the VA is. Sorry. We know because we've actually had to DEAL with them. We've BEEN to their hospitals and clinics.

Have you? Nope.

And yet, other posters in that same thread said they were happy with the VA services (i believe one of them even said the VA saved his life).

If you still don't see why your anecdotes are completely worthless, then i'm sorry, but you're beyond hope, little boy

But please, educate me more about how the NEJM, annals of internal medicine, and rand corporation are all DNC shills and how i should trust the word of an anonymous internet person instead

Phokus, you telling me the VA is high quality health care is about as absurd as me telling you the sky is brown. We can sit here and argue it all day long, but my decade plus experience with horrible VA care tells me far more than your total lack of experience and outcome based (and biased) studies.

Are there good VA hospitals? Maybe. I don't know. But I DO know the VA clinics and hospitals in the five states I have lived in have been miserable third world shithouses compared to private care or even miltary care.

BTW, why must you continue this argument over and over again?

Because i'm still in disbelief that there is a grown man such as yourself that thinks in such childlike ways.

Unlike you, i never used those positive anecdotes to 'prove' how good the VA is, i just used those positive anecdotes about the VA to prove how absurd it is to use anecdotes to evaluate a complex system like the VA in the first place.

Also, you still can't explain why YOUR anecdotes are valid, while the opinions of vets who praise the VA are invalid.

Phokus, tell me this:

If you had been to a chain restaurant in 5 states, and ALL of the locations you ate at had been gut wrenchingly bad... and not only that, but every other customer you personally knew had the same opinion? Then someone threw a study in your face saying that restaurant chain was highest in quality, which would you believe? Your own experience, or this study and a very few biased experiences you heard?

Sorry, but a decade and five states. You're not going to change my mind.

I will say that maybe the VA is better in some western and northeastern states/cities, I don't know. But I know that it sucks in the towns I've lived in in GA, SC, NC, CA (LA) and IL. Beyond that, I have no idea. But based on my experiences, I will never go to another VA clinic or hospital again. The care I have had with my private insurance/providers has been so much better.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Sclamoz

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused


Wow... The forum's biggest troll trying to educate me on objectivity?

That's a joke.

And for what it's worth, no biased, bought and paid for study in the world is going to make my own, and every other Vet I know change their mind about how horrible the VA is. Sorry. We know because we've actually had to DEAL with them. We've BEEN to their hospitals and clinics.

Have you? Nope.

And yet, other posters in that same thread said they were happy with the VA services (i believe one of them even said the VA saved his life).

If you still don't see why your anecdotes are completely worthless, then i'm sorry, but you're beyond hope, little boy

But please, educate me more about how the NEJM, annals of internal medicine, and rand corporation are all DNC shills and how i should trust the word of an anonymous internet person instead

Phokus, you telling me the VA is high quality health care is about as absurd as me telling you the sky is brown. We can sit here and argue it all day long, but my decade plus experience with horrible VA care tells me far more than your total lack of experience and outcome based (and biased) studies.

Are there good VA hospitals? Maybe. I don't know. But I DO know the VA clinics and hospitals in the five states I have lived in have been miserable third world shithouses compared to private care or even miltary care.

BTW, why must you continue this argument over and over again?

Sorry to hear you had bad experiences with the VA, but studies show them to be the best in the country.

In studies, including one by Harvard, and in six straight years of patient satisfaction surveys, the VA earned the highest health care quality rating in the country. It's also the least expensive.

The VA is also a bargain for taxpayers, and not just because of the computers. Doctors are salaried employees, which saves on labor. Drugs are cheaper because of negotiated discounts. Even with its older population, VA care overall costs 30 percent less than the national average.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...news/main2243606.shtml

I understand, and I've read those studies. They don't make sense to me, though.

Even the care I had in the military was much better. And private care was light years better. And, as I said, this is in 5 states.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused


Phokus, tell me this:

If you had been to a chain restaurant in 5 states, and ALL of the locations you ate at had been gut wrenchingly bad... and not only that, but every other customer you personally knew had the same opinion? Then someone threw a study in your face saying that restaurant chain was highest in quality, which would you believe? Your own experience, or this study and a very few biased experiences you heard?

Sorry, but a decade and five states. You're not going to change my mind.

I will say that maybe the VA is better in some western and northeastern states/cities, I don't know. But I know that it sucks in the towns I've lived in in GA, SC, NC, CA (LA) and IL. Beyond that, I have no idea. But based on my experiences, I will never go to another VA clinic or hospital again. The care I have had with my private insurance/providers has been so much better.

Amused:

Tell me this, if a survey was done and more than 80% of the customers who have ever eaten at that restaurant (say 10 million customers) said they were happy with the food/service while the industry average was only maybe 60-70% satisfaction, why on earth would your anecdote matter one bit.