Current Events in June 2013

It's an old joke that men won't stop and ask for directions. But with Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) devices in so many cars today, they don't have to.

GPS devices, as well as smartphone apps, have made it easier to get where you are going. But these systems are not foolproof. Sometimes they can make mistakes.

In fact, 63 percent of U.S. drivers who have used GPS say the technology has given them bad information at least once. In the survey by Harris Interactive for Michelin Travel and Lifestyle, respondents complained of directions that were wrong, as well as complex and confusing routes.

Lost and confused

James, of Portland, Ore., reported one such problem with his Garmin navigation system.

“We have used a Garmin Nuvi 360 GPS for many years with no significant problems,” he wrote in a 2011 ConsumerAffairs post. “But today, as we drove down Arizona Highway 67 to the north rim of Grand Canyon National Park, we encountered problems with the GPS routing that make us wonder how much to trust Garmin. For about 46 miles, we got at least 20 route misdirections, some to the left, some to the right, that tried to put us onto unpaved National Forest roads, such as NF 610, leading from the highway. If we didn't make the turns, we received several 'make a U-turn' instructions.”

Deborah, of Glenburn, Me., complained about her Tom Tom – not for providing wrong data but providing no data at all.

Loss of signal

“It's very difficult to arrive at a destination when the receiver doesn't receive a signal 80% of the time,” Deborah writes. “I guess I'm forced to take legal action, if just for the purpose of helping all of those consumers who are in the same position as I am. I've gotten very upset with the poor employees doing their job, as they didn't make the rules of the game!”

The Michelin survey of 2,200 adult drivers who use GPS found that users report the GPS systems have steered them off-course an average of 4.4 times. The average jumps to 6.3 times when you exclude older drivers and focus just on drivers 18-34.

Despite the errors, consumers increasingly rely on their GPS devices. In the survey 30% said they use them. However, GPS still ranks second to the old school travel aids of maps, printed directions and guidebooks.

Older drivers like maps

Not surprisingly, drivers who are age 55 and over are more likely than those in any other age group to carry maps or atlases when they travel. Fifty-seven percent of drivers in that age group say they travel with maps. The number falls to 34% for drivers age 18 to 34.

While men don't like to ask direction, the survey found that male drivers were more likely to rely on GPS than their female counterparts – 35% to 26%. Drivers in the northeast are most likely to use GPS, drivers in the west are least likely.

"Technology is great, but a printed map is one of the most important tools a traveler in an unfamiliar setting can have — the battery doesn't die, it is easy to use, and it allows you to make decisions on route changes if necessary," said Cynthia Ochterbeck, editorial director of Michelin Travel Partners.

In the last couple of years more drivers have come to rely on the GPS capabilities of their smartphones or tablets. In the survey, 19 percent of respondents said they used those devices for navigation at least once.

Routine screening colonoscopies have lately been criticized for their expense but a new study finds that patients whose colon cancer was identified during such screenings appear to have lower-stage disease on presentation and better outcomes.

Since their introduction in 2000, the National Institutes of Health-recommended screening seemingly have consistently decreased overall rates of colorectal cancer in the United States, according to a report published Online First by JAMA Surgery, a JAMA Network publication.

“Compliance to screening colonoscopy guidelines can play an important role in prolonging longevity, improving quality of life, and reducing health care costs through early detection of colon cancer,” the study's authors concluded.

Ramzi Amri, M.Sc., and colleagues of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, examined the association of screening colonoscopy with outcomes of colon cancer surgery by reviewing differences in staging, disease-free interval, risk of recurrence, and survival and to identify whether diagnosis through screening was associated with long-term outcomes independent of staging.

Patients not diagnosed through screening were at risk for having more invasive tumors, nodal disease, and metastatic disease on presentation. In follow-up, these patients had higher death rates, and recurrence rates as well as shorter survival and disease-free intervals.

After controlling for staging and baseline characteristics, the authors found that death rate and survival duration were better stage for stage with diagnosis through screening. Death and metastasis rates also remained lower among patients with tumors without nodal or metastatic spread.

An improvement in real home prices, initial unemployment claims and real wages put consumers in a spending mood during May, pushing the Deloitte Consumer Spending Index higher.

The index, which comprises four components -- tax burden, initial unemployment claims, real wages and real home prices -- rose slightly to 4.27 from 4.12 in April. It tracks consumer cash flow as an indicator of future consumer spending.

"Three out of the four components of the index contributed to an uptick in May and have stayed on a moderate and steady track of improvement over the past several months," said Daniel Bachman, Deloitte's senior U.S. economist. "The labor market has stabilized, and initial unemployment claims fell nearly six% since this time last year, while real home prices continued to climb and real wages crept up."

Weather a factor

"Mother nature -- rather than the economy or consumers -- dealt retailers a wild card this spring," said Alison Paul, vice chairman, Deloitte LLP and retail & distribution sector leader. "Retailers should take a cue from the past year's weather as a reminder of the many volatile and unforeseen factors that may affect their sales. Predictive modeling and scenario planning can help retailers prepare for potential business disruptions, which can have a profound impact as they head into their busy and profitable back-to-school and holiday seasons."

Index highlights

• Tax burden: The tax burden remained in May, but was up 2.26% from last year.
• Initial unemployment claims: Claims fell to 343,000 in April, nearly a six percentage point decrease from May 2012.
• Real wages: Hourly real wages inched up 0.4% from the same period a year ago -- reaching $8.81.
• Real new home prices: Real new home prices climbed to $117,329, an 8.5% increase from this time last year.

National Beef Packing of Liberal, Kan., is recalling approximately 22,737 pounds of raw ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

There are no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products.

The following products are subject to recall:

• 10 lb. packages of “National Beef” 80/20 Coarse Ground Chuck, package code “0481.”
• 10 lb. packages of “National Beef” 81/19 Coarse Ground Beef, package code “0421.”
• 10 lb. packages of “National Beef” 80/20 Fine Ground Chuck, package code “0484.”

The products have a “USE BY/SELL BY DATE” of June 14, 2013. They were produced on May 25, 2013, and shipped to various institutions and retail establishments. The is concern that some products may be frozen and in shoppers’ freezers.

Consumers with questions should contact the company at (877) 857-4143 for details about the recall and their return and reimbursement policy.   

Chrysler Group says it has resolved its differences with federal safety regulators and will inspect as many as 2.7 million older-model Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty SUVs that critics say are prone to burst into flames after rear-end impacts. Chrysler had initially refused safety regulators' request that it recall the Jeeps -- an action that enraged consumer advocates and electrified the auto industry, which nearly always goes along with the government's recall requests.

In a brief statement today, the automaker said: "Chrysler Group recognizes that this matter has raised concerns for its customers and wants to take further steps, in coordination with NHTSA, to provide additional measures to supplement the safety of its vehicles.

"Chrysler Group regards safety as a paramount concern and does not compromise on the safety of our customers and their families."

The vehicles in question are 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees and 2002-07 Jeep Libertys. 

Chrysler later said the inspections would cover 1.56 million 1993-98 Grand Cherokee and 2002-07 Jeep Liberty models. Owners of 1999-2004 Grand Cherokee models will receive a letter informing them to have their vehicles inspected, but only if they have an aftermarket rear hitch installed. 

Chrysler says that it will, if necessary, install a trailer hitch assembly along the rear of the vehicle to "better manage crash forces in low-speed impacts." The hitch would help deflect damage to the gas tank. 

Whether that's adequate is open to question, critics said.

"We call on NHTSA to do crash tests of Chrysler's proposed remedy, just as it did with Ford's proposed remedy for the Pinto in 1978, to determine that the modified Jeeps meet the present Safety Standard just as the Pinto's had to the meet the new Safety Standard in 1978," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. "If the modified Jeeps do not pass, we call on NHTSA to require Chrysler to develop a more effective remedy just as NHTSA did with the Pinto when it failed the first round of tests."

Ditlow also noted that Chrysler's "inspection" plan did not include older Grand Cherokees.

"In view of Chrysler's refusal to recall 1999-04 Grand Cherokees, we call on NHTSA to move to an initial determination of a defect in order to force their recall as well," he said.

In its agreement with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Chrysler is not admitting that the vehicles were defective, since to do so would make it more difficult to defend against lawsuits filed by accident victims and their survivors.

"Chrysler Group’s analysis of the data confirms that these vehicles are not defective and are among the safest in the peer group," the company said. "Nonetheless, Chrysler Group recognizes that this matter has raised concerns for its customers and wants to take further steps, in coordination with NHTSA, to provide additional measures to supplement the safety of its vehicles."

Long history

The dispute over the SUVs' safety has been dragging on for years. 

In 2011, consumer crusader Ralph Nader called on the company to recall the vehicles, calling them "a modern day Pinto for soccer moms with a fuel tank located dangerously behind the rear axle in the crush zone of an impact. "

"Now that Fiat has purchased Chrysler, it has the moral obligation to remedy the deadly fuel tank design in the Jeep Grand Cherokee before more innocent victims are burned today, not only in the United States, but also in Europe,” Nader said in a speech in Milan, Italy, where he had received an award from an automotive magazine.

The consumer push heated up in January 2013 when a Virginia woman who stood by helplessly as two people burned to death in their Jeep Grand Cherokee launched an online petition, hoping to motivate federal safety officials to order a recall. The petition has gathered nearly 128,000 signatures.

Jenelle Embrey of Linden, Va., was riding with her father on Interstate 81 in the Shenandoah Valley when traffic slowed to a halt on the chronically-congested highway.

Suddenly, they were hit from the rear by a Jeep that in turn had been rear-ended by a tractor-trailer truck that failed to stop. As flames began licking at the back of the Jeep, Embrey's father smashed the window and rescued a teen-aged boy but was driven back by flames before he could rescue another teen and their mother.

"Dad and I stood in front of the Jeep and watched in horror as the mom and teen burned to death. The saved teen watched the burning Jeep too as he tearfully screamed, 'Mom! Mom!'”

That accident happened near Winchester, Va., where iin 2011, another Jeep Grand Cherokee exploded into flames after being rear-ended by a pick-up truck at a stop light. Mark and Amanda Roe and their sons Caleb, 11, and Tyler, 4 died in that accident. The boys were killed by the impact. Their parents burned to death when the Jeep's gas tank burst into flames. 

After the accident involving Embrey's car on I-81, she was sitting in a patrol car with the state trooper leading the investigation as he wrote up his report.

"The officer shook his head and said, 'That's the same vehicle that killed the Roe family,'" Embrey said. "He just sat and stared into the burned-out Jeep. Everybody knows this is happening. Why can't we do something about it?"

Besides the online petition, Embrey purchased space on several billboards in the Winchester area urging consumers to sign her petition.

Fatality count 

Consumer advocates, Chrysler and NHTSA don't agree on how many fire deaths have occurred in the vehicles. 

"The known toll now stands at 185 fatal fire crashes with 270 deaths and numerous burn injuries," Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety said in a 2011 letter to Chrysler Group LLC Chairman Sergio Marchionne.

Embrey says the current count is 287 deaths in 202 fiery crashes.

Both Chrysler and NHTSA cited lower figures and claim the Jeeps have a safety record comparable to similar vehicles of the same age, assertion Ditlow disputes.

"The 1993-04 Grand Cherokee has a fatal crash fire occurrence rate that is about four times higher than SUVs made by other companies," Ditlow said in an October 2, 2009 petition to NHTSA asking for an immediate safety recall. "Comparing the 1993-04 Grand Cherokee with the exposed rear fuel tank to the 2005 and later Grand Cherokee with the shielded fuel tank in front of rear axle in the first five years of use for both vehicles so that it’s an apples to apples comparison, the defective old Grand Cherokee has a fatal fire rate six times higher than the new Grand Cherokee."

NHTSA "pleased"

NHTSA issued a statement saying it was "pleased that Chrysler has agreed to take action to protect its customers and the driving public" but said it would "continue our investigation into this issue, pending the agency’s review of the documents provided by Chrysler in its recall action."

Consumers impacted by the safety recall and customer satisfaction campaign should have their vehicles serviced promptly once they receive notification from Chrysler, NHTSA added. 

You've probably noticed that more and more reality shows are being added to television these days. On just about every channel you'll see folks of all ages doing the craziest things to be on camera and become famous.

Most people on reality shows seem to be outgoing with plenty of self-esteem, which could make you believe the average person has that same level of confidence too.

However, according to a study released by Anytime Fitness, one in three people has either low self-esteem or very low self-esteem and a lot of those negative feelings have to do with their weight gain and body image.

Statistics show that 53% of the U.S. population is interested in covering up their problem areas when choosing outfits or that they'll pick clothes to compensate for the areas of their body they don't like.

Other results show that 20% feel too embarrassed about their bodies to be seen in a gym, so they don't go, and that these kinds of body image issues affect 57% of women and 29% of men.

Long-lasting problems

Elvira G. Aletta, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and founder of Explore What's Next, a company that helps people with their emotional challenges, says tying your self-esteem to how your body looks can cause some long-lasting problems.

"There are people out there who hate their body for what it is. A lot of overweight people judge themselves in a way they would never judge anyone else," wrote Aletta on PsychCentral.com. "When we get like this, every ounce of our self-esteem is wrapped up in what the scale says. Our lives are measured by pounds lost and gained from day to day, week to week, month to month.

"At its worst, this way of thinking can lead to a serious, life-threatening eating disorder. But even at its best, self-esteem/weight dependency is not good," she wrote.

Covering up

Dr. Daemon Jones, of Healthydaes Naturopathic Medical Center, says weight management and low self-esteem can go hand in hand, especially for women.

Many of the patients who struggle with self-esteem and body issues wear  specific clothes to not only hide certain body parts, but to hide the people they really are, says Jones.

"One of the things that I've noticed is when women come into the office -- if they're carrying more weight than their frame can manage, which is  the way I like to look at it and think about it -- then they may not be wearing clothes that they feel good in or they feel sexy in," she said. "They may be trying to hide themselves and they may not be really willing to share who they are with the people around them."

No gender boundaries

Of course it's not just some women who suffer from low self-esteem and body image issues. Plenty of men suffer too.

A study conducted by researchers at the University of Florida shows today's men want to be bigger with more muscles.

"If you look back at what was considered the ideal male body 50 years ago it wasn't this super hyper muscular physique that we have now," said Heather Hausenblas, a psychology professor at Concordia University, who did her doctoral dissertation at the University of Florida.

"Body image problems such as eating disorders and striving to be thin have always been attributed to women, but now we're seeing a significant rise in men who are dissatisfied with how they look and want to become more muscular," she explained.

And when it comes to which area of the body people have the most trouble keeping in shape, 21% of women said it's their legs and hips. Four percent of men said same thing.

The road to self-esteem

While many of us aren't too thrilled about our bodies or our lack of proper diet and exercise, that's no reason to let your self-esteem go down the tubes, experts say.

Lori Osachy, a therapist and body image expert at The Body Image Counseling Center in Florida, said building your self-esteem has to do with retraining your brain, even if you have to fake being self-confident at first.

"Even if in the beginning that means you have to jump in front of the mirror and shout, 'You're awesome,' and then immediately jump back out that's okay," she said in a published interview. "The goal is to retrain your brain how to think positively about your reflection and your body."

What to do

Other experts say many of us will go out of our way to be kind to others, but won't be kind to ourselves, so it's important to think highly of yourself -- even if you don't feel like doing it.

In addition, experts say exercising and eating better for health reasons, instead of weight reasons, can help you with your self-esteem issues. And seeing yourself as a complete human being instead of seeing yourself as a person with out of shape body parts can help, too.

Experts say focusing too heavily on reaching a desired weight or getting upset with yourself because you've gained a few pounds is a big no-no.

Instead, pay more attention to the entire person you are, meaning your personality, how you treat others, how important you are to your family, and so on.

This will allow you to see yourself as a complete person and not just a number on a scale.

In the end, acceptance in modern society is governed by how much money you have.

Gay people, it turns out, have a lot, collectively at least. Research conducted by Witeck Communications shows the buying power of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the United States is around $790 billion.

And over time, more and more companies are reaching out to LGBT consumers through advertising and letting the general public know they support same-sex causes.

Where the money is

Witeck president Bob Witeck says although the LGBT community has tremendous buying power, a lot of companies still need to do a better of marketing to gay consumers.

Companies will also have to remember that buying power isn't synonymous with having a lot of money, Witeck explained.

"Buying power is not the same as affluence or wealth," he said in a statement. "There is no hint that same-sex households are more affluent than others, which is little more than a stereotype. We have seen research from economic research that strongly suggests that gay men may earn slightly less than their heterosexual counterparts, for instance."

But researchers at Experian Marketing Services have released statistics that show otherwise. A recent study reveals that gay men earn $800 more than heterosexual men, as the average income for gay men is $60,800. Heterosexual men make about $60,000 on average.

Additionally, gay men who are married or live with their partner have a household income of $115,500. on average, compared with married heterosexual men who have a household income of $102,100.

However it's different for gay women.

According to Experian, lesbian women earn 8% less than heterosexual women at $38,000 a year and heterosexual women make about $42,000.

And when it comes to discretionary spending, gay men spend the most out of all consumers, at $6,794 a year. Heterosexual men spend about $6,041 on average.

More inclusion

Jody Huckaby, executive director of the non-profit organization PFLAG, says we'll be seeing more companies reach out to the LGBT community and their extended families.

"Equality in corporate America is more than just a trend," said Huckaby in a published interview. "It is a reality that companies both large and small need to support in order to remain competitive. This is about much more than just LGBT people themselves.

"This is about the families, friends, co-workers and other supporters who will be loyal to companies who invest in fairness for their LGBT loved ones," Huckaby maintains. "And that translates into employee loyalty, consumer base expansion and big economic gains today and in the years to come."

Companies are driven

Some automobile companies are making efforts to reach the LGBT community too.

Rob Wilson, director for diversity and inclusion at Nissan, said companies need to recognize how strong the LGBTs' buying power really is.

"The LGBT market is a key demographic with both population numbers and buying power that are considerable, even when compared to other diversity segments," said Wilson in an interview with The Tennessean.

Founder of the company Out Now Consulting, Ian Johnson, agrees with Wilson and says families and friends of the LGBT community need to be marketed to as well, which many companies are just now figure out.

"They're not just marketing to the 15 million Americans who identify as gay or lesbian," said Johnson in a published interview. "They're marketing to the millions of people who support their work colleagues, their friends, their family. As American is aging and Gen X and Y are moving into middle management, this is the core market. It is a very strong statement for brand positioning."

Off the fence

Advertising efforts aren't just being increased for the LGBT community and their families, experts say. Some companies are letting other consumers know where they stand on same-sex issues.

Witeck says it's important for a company to do this, so it doesn't appear to be on the fence.

"Any signal that leadership is waffling on their core beliefs is a problem. Companies today are being judged by a lot of executive behaviors," said Witeck. "There's a halo effect. Whether or not you have strong or no or negative feelings about gay issues, you still want to hear leaders stand up for what they believe in."

It's not a subject we like to think about, but it's prudent to plan for your death. Usually, part of that plan will include a life insurance policy.

Life insurance is most important when a family is young. In previous generations a husband took out a policy to provide for his wife and children should something happen to him. Today, it's usually important for both husband and wife to be covered since the family may depend on both their incomes.

Buying life insurance is an important financial decision and shouldn't be taken lightly. Christine, of Old Lyme, Conn., realizes she needed to ask more questions when a Colonial Life and Accident agent signed her up at work.

Miscommunication

“He told me this 'term' policy was what I needed,” Christine wrote in a ConsumerAffairs post. “Seven years later, when I was cut back on my hours and needed to re-think the deduction, I contacted the new agent and she told me that all the money I had contributed in this term policy would be gone! I could not change policy, I could not touch the money I contributed, and she was very sorry. Seems that the previous agent did not explain things to me, and I did not ask questions.”

Christine admits that she was naive when she signed up for the policy but her real problem is that she did not understand what she was buying. She purchased a “term” policy and not permanent insurance. Term insurance is in force only as long as you continue to make the payments. Once you stop the payments, the coverage ends. It's like renting your insurance.

The advantage to term life is that it costs much less than other types of policies. If you only want insurance coverage over the 25-year period that your children are being born and growing up, then a term policy may be just what you need. Once the last child graduates and gets a job, you let the policy lapse.

Christine apparently believed she was getting a policy that would eventually be paid up, or have a cash value that she could redeem should she cancel. These policies typically cost more and may or may not be a good use of your money.

Not always good investments

Whole life policies, for example, are more expensive because it is generally assumed they will be in effect longer than term policies and therefore, the odds the company may have to pay off are greater. Many financial advisers caution that non-term policies are generally not a good place to put your money. And because the products are so costly, a consumer typically under-insures, buying less coverage than they need.

A term policy, on the other hand, provides more coverage per dollar, allowing you to put the savings into more productive investments. The key, of course, is actually investing your savings. If you do, you should have a significant nest egg by the time you discontinue your term policy and can, in effect, self-insure.

Before considering the purchase of a life insurance product, learn the basics. Make sure you understand the difference between term insurance and permanent insurance.

When it comes time to purchase an insurance policy, make sure you buy the right kind for your needs. Once you understand the differences in policies it will be easier to avoid these mistakes.

How much?

How much insurance do you need? You need to answer this question before making a final decision. If you have a young family, both spouses need a policy that will provide enough money to help meet the family's needs for several years.

Buy insurance when you are young. Insurance is all about odds, with the company betting you won't die and you betting you will. The numbers suggest a 25-year old has a better chance of staying alive than a 45-year old. When you purchase life insurance when you are young and in good health, you'll get a better deal.

Consumers have long been aware that celebrity endorsements mean less than nothing. But what about endorsements from "friends" and other non-celebrities? Are they any more valid?

Not according to 600,000 people featured in "sponsored story" ads on Facebook. They're not contesting the validity of the endorsements, mind you, just complaining that they didn't get paid and didn't give their permission to allow the use of their images.

Facebook is proposing to pay each of the unwitting endorsers a big $10, an amount it says should be considered a "windfall."

“They paid Facebook no money at all and suffered no actual economic damages, much less injury. Yet they are being paid an amount that far exceeds any profit Facebook allegedly earned by using their names and likenesses,” the company says in a motion asking U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California to approve the settlement.

Facebook says the settlement is “fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally approved.”

The class action lawsuit alleges that Facebook violated a California law that says companies need people's permission before using their names or images in ads. In the case of minors, companies need parental consent.

The agreement proposes to take care of that little problem by amending Facebook's terms of service to provide that users give permission for their names and photos to be shown in ads when they sign up to use Facebook.

What about children?

Nobody, except maybe Facebook, is very enthused about the settlement and consumers' groups are downright upset about a provision that would let Facebook use children's photos as long as users under 18 said that one of their parents approved.

Public Citizen has objected to that provision, saying that Facebook shouldn't be permitted to use children's names in ads, even if they can opt out, without more proof that their parents have consented.

Public Citizen argues that the deal effectively authorizes Facebook to continue using minors' names and images in ads without parental permission -- despite the fact that seven states explicitly prohibit companies from doing so.

“The proposed settlement authorizes Facebook to violate the law of at least seven states,” the advocacy organization argued in recent court papers.

Lifestyle Liftadvertises that it can "turn the clock back by tightening and smoothing your face and neck" but it's going to have to tighten up the face it presents to the public through its advertising under an agreement with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“Lifestyle Lift has agreed to change its marketing materials and practices to eliminate any possible consumer confusion about its services,” Bondi said. The settlement follows an investigation of allegations surrounding the accuracy and fairness of claims made to consumers about the facial rejuvenation services provided at Lifestyle Lift medical centers.

In its infomercials and web ads, some narrated by songstress Debby Boone, Lifestyle Lift has promised it "turns the clock back by tightening and smoothing your face and neck to create a more youthful appearance."

Under the Florida settlement, Lifestyle Lift must disclose any compensation made to the models used in its advertisements and its materials, disclose what facial rejuvenation services were performed on models appearing in the company's marketing materials, and comply with Federal Trade Commission guidelines concerning the use of before and after photographs of models in endorsements and testimonials in marketing materials.

The company has also agreed not to use the term “revolutionary procedure” in its advertising to describe the basic Lifestyle Lift surgical procedure.

Florida consumers who purchased services between June 1, 2009 and June 10, 2013 may be entitled to obtain a refund. Eligible consumers are required to submit a claim form to the company postmarked no later than Sept. 8, 2013. Claim forms are available here (pdf file). 

Mary of Modesto, Calif., is one of many consumers who've posted negative ConsumerAffairs reviews about their experience with Lifestyle Lift.

"My neck feels like I have a choker on that is too tight. Every time I turn my head, I get a new bruise under my chin," she said. "It has been 5 weeks, and the back of my ears still hurt. I get pinching pains in my chin area that are strong and uncomfortable. My cheeks are still bloated."

Astroturfing

It's not always easy to find honest reviews about the process. In 2009, Lifestyle Lift settled a lawsuit with New York's attorney general over its attempts to file false reviews on popular websites.

Under the settlement, Lifestyle Lift agreed to stop publishing anonymous positive reviews about the company to Internet message boards and other Web sites, and paid $300,000 in penalties and costs. The case was believed to be the first in the nation aimed at combating "astroturfing," a growing problem on the Internet.

“This company’s attempt to generate business by duping consumers was cynical, manipulative, and illegal,” said then-Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo. “My office has and will continue to be on the forefront in protecting consumers against emerging fraud and deception, including ‘astroturfing,’ on the Internet.”

Internal emails discovered by Cuomo’s investigation showed that Lifestyle Lift employees were given specific instructions to engage in the illegal activity. One e-mail to employees said: “Friday is going to be a slow day - I need you to devote the day to doing more postings on the web as a satisfied client.” Another internal email directed a Lifestyle Lift employee to “Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had.”

You don't get something for nothing. Trite but true. Yet millions of consumers use ad-blockers hoping to get useful and entertaining content without paying for it by looking at the ads that pay the freight. Hoping to steal it, in other words.

Sometimes it works, or seems to. But a report today says that one of the most popular ad-blocking services, Ghostery, is collecting data about your browsing habits all the time it's blocking ads, allowing its parent company, Evidon, to sell that data to advertisers.

The MIT Techology Review says Evidon sells data collected from its 8 million Ghostery users to companies who want to improve their use of tracking code.

"This is not a scheme," MIT quotes Scott Meyer, Evidon's CEO, as saying. It's helpful to give advertisers Ghostery's data because advertisers don't generally want to target people who have opted out of advertising, he says.

It's a little hard to discern exactly what Ghostery and Evidon do and even a careful reading of their respective sites can leave one flummoxed.

"The Ghostery community is one of the strongest and most sophisticated on the web," Evidon says in a typical entry on its site. "More than ten million users have opted in to the 'GhostRank' panel, anonymously supplying tracker information back to Ghostery to help improve the service and foster a more transparent Internet."

Perhaps the takeaway for consumers who don't have the knack or the need to study the issue in depth is that those who use services should expect to pay for them one way or another.

Higher costs for housing and energy products sent prices on the consumer level slightly higher in May.

Government figures show the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inched up 0.% last month, bring the rate of inflation over the last 12 months to 1.4%. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected the CPI to show a gain of 0.2% following an 0.4% decline in April

The cost of housing, which rose 0.3% accounted for more than half of the increase in May. Energy prices were up modes modestly, with gasoline prices unchanged but increases showing up in the cost of electricity and natural gas. Higher prices for airline fares, recreation and apparel also contributed to the rise.

Food prices were lower in May index, however, turned down in May, with the food at home index falling 0.3 percent. Nonalcoholic beverages, dairy and related products, and cereals and bakery products posted declines, while meats, poultry, fish and eggs, which increased in April, were was unchanged in May. The only increase was for fruits and vegetables (0.4%) after a 1.4% decline in April.

The “core rate” of inflation, which strips out the volatile food and energy sectors, was up 0.2%.

The full CPI report is available at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.

New home construction

Home builders were hard at work last month as housing starts jumped 6.8% in May to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 914,000. That's 28.6% the rate of 711,000 a year ago. Ground was broken for single-family homes at a rate of 599,000 in May -- 0.3% above the revised April figure of 597,000. The May rate for units in buildings with five units or more was 306,000.

Looking ahead, meanwhile. Things aren't quite so rosy.

Building permits for privately-owned housing units, an indicator of builders' plans for construction in the months ahead, totaled 974,000 -- down 3.1% from the revised April rate of 1,005,000. Still, that's 20.8% above the May 2012 estimate of 806,000.

Permits for single-family homes were up 1.3% to 622,000. Authorizations of units in buildings with five units or more were at a rate of 325,000 in May.

You can read a lot of articles and find a lot of advertisements for different home security systems but in the end, it’s the experiences of other consumers that are the most helpful in choosing a system for your home.

Roberta is a single mom from Dallas. After her home was broken into, Roberta started researching the various systems out there.

“I did some pretty intense online shopping and LifeShield definitely had the best incentives and the most features,” she said. “I really needed full home protection ­ not just my front and back doors. In comparing LifeShield's Home Kit to other home security systems on the market, LifeShield was the only one that would protect my whole home including windows and other entryways.

“My LifeShield Security Advisor, Jackie, was very knowledgeable and walked me through all the cool differentiating features of the product,” Roberta said.

Homeowners posting to ConsumerAffairs have also praised LifeShield’s customer service.

“I have over 25 years of experience in training inbound and outbound customer service agents for Fortune 50 companies,” said Patrick of Yukon, Okla. “It's an elite group known for its excellence in the marketplace, with most having been in business for over 50 years. LifeShield belongs in this elite group! Knowing my background and understanding that I seek perfection in attitude and expertise when recruiting and training new agents to handle both inbound and outbound calls, on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being superior, LifeShield earns a 15!”

“What is amazing to me is that every person I have worked with at LifeShield has been superior in knowledge, customer service expertise, courtesy, explaining things in laymen's terms, and doing everything possible to ensure a ‘one call resolution,’” Patrick said.

Sarah of Libertyville, Ill., wrote to compliment LifeShield’s handling of a minor problem she had encountered.

“We were having trouble with one of the window sensors going offline, but it is now working,” she said. “We just started monitoring and everything is running well. Every time we have had to call our sales rep Scott, he has been very helpful and quick to solve our issue. Tech support has had the same quick helpful response too.”

It’s an understatement to say that compliments like these are unusual in the home security business. Most security companies sell you and never want to hear from you but LS is different based on consumer reviews. They actually call you to make sure you are using your system and answer any questions you might have.

Check the reviews in the ConsumerAffairs Home Security Alarm Section and you’ll find comments like this about other companies:

• Ara of Pasadena, Calif.: “Monitronics does a credit inquiry after stating that they don't check your credit. The place is run by high school dropouts. Customer service... there is none. If your equipment breaks, you have to pay for them to come out and look at it.”
• Joshua of Milton, W. Va.: “No help at all [from ADT]. Supposed to be an appointment. No one showed and gave us the usual runaround story. Service is not good at all. Go with someone else.”
• Liz of Baytown, Texas: “I’ve had this company [APX Alarm] for three months and it’s been a nightmare. I would not recommend them to anyone. Their cameras never work and their smoke detector didn’t go off when needed, which was the last straw for me. They replaced cameras once for being faulty. Their supervisor had the nerve to call me a liar when I complained about the smoke detector.”

See http://www.lifeshield.com/ca/ or call 877-570-4581 to learn more.

Mitsubishi Motors North America is recalling replacement lithium-ion batteries installed on certain 2012 Mitsubishi i-MiEV vehicles. The batteries were manufactured December 18, 2012, through December 21, 2012.

The batteries may have internal contamination possibly causing reduced voltage. Also, the batteries may also develop a short-circuit during charging. Internal contamination of the battery may cause reduced voltage resulting in a stall-like condition, increasing the risk of a crash.

Mitsubishi will notify the owners instructing them to take their vehicle to a dealer where the batteries will be replaced free of charge. The manufacturer has not yet provided a notification schedule.

Owners may contact Mitsubishi at 1-800-222-0307. Mitsubishi's recall number is SR-13-006.

Hardly anyone has had a good word to say about how Bank of America conducted itself during the housing meltdown. In fact, the situation just seems to keep getting worse.

In the latest series of damaging accusations, a group of Bank of America employees say in court documents filed in Boston that they regularly lied to homeowners seeking loan modifications and were rewarded for shunting homeowners into foreclosure, the non-profit news service Pro Publica reports.

A Bank of America spokesman denied the allegations, which he said were "rife with factual inaccuracies" and said the bank would respond more fully in court next month.

In sworn statements, six former employees described how they allegedly helped to trick and deceive homeowners. Five worked for the bank and one was employed by a contractor.

The statements were made in connection with a multi-state class action lawsuit by homeowners who say the bank mishandled their applications for refinancing under the Obama administration's Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP).

Customers "blitzed" 

One of the former employees, William Wilson Jr., says in his statement that his unit sometimes denied refinances en masse in a procedure they called a "blitz."

"During a blitz, a single team would decline between 600 and 1,500 modification files at a time," he said. To justify the action, he said the employees would simply make up reasons, often saying the homeowner had not sent in the required documents, when in fact they had done so.

"We were told to lie to customers and claim that Bank of America had no received documents it had requested," another employee said, according to the Pro Publica report. Homeowners who called in were routinely told their applications were "under review" when in fact nothing had been done or they had already been denied, one of the former employees said.

The testimony is similar to the hundreds of complaints posted to ConsumerAffairs, like this one from Patricia of LaPorte, Indiana:

"I would like to tell everyone who has a home loan through Bank of America to make sure you never try to file for a loan modification and expect to get one. My husband and I tried for several months and did everything Bank of America asked us to.

"We faxed documents one right after another. Our case manager who was assigned to us told us we were approved, only to then get the call a few days later and told we did not get it."

 When the HAMP program was launched in 2009 to help homeowners get mortgage modifications, Bank of America was by far the largest mortgage service in the program, with twice as many eligible loans as the next-largest bank. 

The former employees say they were simply unable to deal with the huge crush of applications from customers and, rather than staff up to handle the applications, the bank simply lied to its customers.

Residents of New York City don't know what they've been missing all these years, and if Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way, they never will. No, we're not talking about smoking in the park, jay-walking, drinking Big Gulps or refusing to risk one's neck by riding a bike on 6th Avenue. We're talking garbage.

For reasons lost in the mists of antiquity, they don't have garbage disposals in New York. Gothamites must scrape their food scraps into the garbage pail and lug it to the curb or, in the case of high-rise dwellers, down the hall to the garbage chute.

When traveling abroad, to places like Los Angeles, New Yorkers are amazed to see table scraps disappear into the kitchen sink amid a loud grinding sound. They must sometimes be cautioned against putting their hand into the grinder to see what all the fuss is about -- sort of the way visiting Angelenos must be cautioned against thinking a crosswalk means anything in NYC.

Not high-tech

The garbage grinder is not exactly high-tech. It's a bunch of blades that whir around under the sink and grind stuff up. The devices have been in general use just about everywhere since 1940 or so. They were, however, illegal in New York City for many years because of fears they would somehow damage the city's sewer system. They became legal in 1997 but are still rare in a city that until recently feared nothing. 

And now, having missed out on the last 70 years or so of garbage-grinding, New Yorkers are being asked to forsake it forever, in favor of composting.

How in the world can you build a compost heap in a 50-story building? Well, you could do it on the roof, perhaps, but there are -- pardon us for mentioning this, Mr. Mayor -- the rats to worry about. Leave food lying around outside and you will soon have rats the size of the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade floats climbing up the back stairs.

But undissuaded, His Honor is pressing ahead with a plan to require his long-suffering subjects to separate food scraps from other types of waste and put them in special waste bins that will be dispersed throughout his realm. 

The city's bean-counters figure it will amount to about 100 tons a year of food scraps and, yes, this will be another reason not to hang around NYC in the summer. 

“This is going to be really transformative,” said Charles F. Holloway IV, a deputy mayor. “You want to get on a trajectory where you’re not sending anything to landfills.”

Fuel from food!

Instead, the city is dreaming of building a composting plant that will magically transform left-over meat and potato scraps into bio-gas, which in turn will be burned to generate electricity. The program will be voluntary for now but city officials expect New Yorkers to be so eager to get on board that it may become mandatory within a few years.

This all sounds peachy, of course, just another day in Camelot. However, anyone with a long memory might suggest that the mayor and his deputies look into the history of the five incinerators that once graced Long Island, the long and narrow island that juts out into the Atlantic east of Mayor Bloomberg's turf.

Back in the day, environmentalists thought that operating landfills on Long Island was dangerous from a pollution standpoint so local politicos built some very expensive incinerators. But then, residents complained about smoke, foul odors and toxic emissions from the incinerators which -- many millions of dollars later -- were closed.

Even former Republican Senator Al D'Amato, who had enthusiastically supported building the incinerators when he was a local Long Island politician, jumped on the bandwagon and insisted the incinerators be closed, even as his faithful brother Armand continued working as a lobbyist for incinerator interests.  

Now, many communities on Long Island and elsewhere in the NYC area just ship their garbage to Virginia and forget about it.

Sounds like a plan. 

It's one thing when you order an exotic kitchen gadget you saw on a TV infomercial and later ask, “what was I thinking?” It's quite another when you buy a home and, months down the road, have a case of buyer's remorse. But it happens all the time.

With a home, there are no returns so you had better be prepared to stick with your purchase for a few years. That puts a lot of pressure on a home purchase decision, especially if it has to be made on a tight deadline.

Real estate site Trulia surveyed users and found that 52% expressed at least one regret about their current home, or the way they went about selecting it. Learning from previous buyers' mistakes may help you avoid a case of home buyer's remorse of your own.

Need more room

For example, 17% of those in the survey said they wished they had purchased a larger home. When looking at houses, it is easy to be attracted to a “cute” bungalow, especially if it is uncluttered and tastefully decorated.

But keep in mind it is being “staged” for sale. Half the owner's belongings could be in a storage unit, for all you know. That's why you should pay attention to the home's square footage and compare it to the space you are occupying now, or how much you think you will need in the future.

Does the home have a basement or attic? How many and what size are the closets? These could be important questions if you have a lot of belongings that need to be stored.

Fourteen percent of respondents said they wished they had done more remodeling before they moved in. Once you move in, painting, knocking out walls and tearing out a kitchen or bathroom is very disruptive. If you have the time, doing remodeling before you move in can make life a little easier.

Another common regret among home buyers is failure to learn more about the home before buying it. That's why you do home inspections but these inspections don't always pick up every problem.

Other second thoughts

Other homeowners said they wished they had put more money down at purchase and some said they wished they had waited to buy a home until they were more financially secure. Taken together, these second thoughts provide good reasons to take your time in the home purchase process.

“Many homes don’t stay on the market for long, so buyers will have to move fast,” said Jed Kolko, Trulia’s chief economist. “But when it comes to searching for a home, as with everything else, moving too fast leads to mistakes and regrets.”

Besides taking your time, there are some other things you can do to avoid second-guessing yourself later. Before starting your search, make a list of all the things that you think are important in your new home. Then, when you find a house that you think fits the bill, review it against that list.

If you decided you want a house with a garage and the house you are considering doesn't have one, ask yourself how important that criteria is. You may find that you love the home's architecture, the landscaping and the French doors, but in all the practical requirements you set out, it comes up short.

Location

It's true what they say about real estate and location, so give the home's location some serious thought. It's not uncommon for first time home buyers to be seduced by the idea of purchasing a brand-new home. But to find a new home in their price range they may have to go to the outer suburbs.

If you have jobs in the city center, think about the commute. Not just the gasoline you'll need but the time you'll spend in a car each day. Good advice from Realtors is to buy the location, not the house.

Purchasing a home is stressful and most mistakes occur when you feel rushed. Take your time and realize that, if one house gets away from you, another will come along.  

Eating more red meat over time is associated with an increased risk of type-2 diabetes in a follow-up of three studies of about 149,000 U.S. men and women, according to a report published Online First byJAMA Internal Medicine, a JAMA Network publication.

“Our results confirm the robustness of the association between red meat and type-2 diabetes and add further evidence that limiting red meat consumption over time confers benefits for diabetes prevention,” the researchers concluded.

But a commentary accompanying the study noted that the emphasis might be better placed on limiting saturated fat.

“A recommendation to consume less red meat may help to reduce the epidemic of type-2 diabetes. However, the overwhelming preponderance of molecular, cellular, clinical and epidemiological evidence suggests that public health messages should be directed toward the consumption of high-quality protein that is low in total and saturated fat," said William J. Evans, Ph.D., of GlaxoSmithKline and Duke University, Durham, N.C.

"These public health recommendations should include cuts of red meat that are also low in fat, along with fish, poultry and low-fat dairy products. It is not the type of protein (or meat) that is the problem: it is the type of fat,” Evans concludes.

Previous studies

Red meat consumption has been consistently related to an increased risk of type-2 diabetes, but previous studies measured red meat consumption at a baseline with limited follow-up information. However, a person’s eating behavior changes over time and measurement of consumption at a single point in time does not capture the variability of intake during follow-up, the authors note in the study background.

An Pan, Ph.D., of the National University of Singapore, and colleagues analyzed data from three Harvard group studies and followed up 26,357 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study; 48,709 women in the Nurses’ Health Study; and 74,077 women in the Nurses’ Health Study II. Diets were assessed using food frequency questionnaires.

During more than 1.9 million person-years of follow-up, researchers documented 7,540 incident cases of type-2 diabetes. 

The results indicate that compared with a group with no change in red meat intake, increasing red meat intake of more than 0.50 servings per day was associated with a 48 percent elevated risk in the subsequent four-year period.

Reducing red meat consumption by more than 0.50 servings per day from baseline to the first four years of follow-up was associated with a 14 percent lower risk during the subsequent entire follow-up.

Have your car insurance rates gone up? Unless you live in California, the answer is almost surely yes.  

You might wonder how that's possible. Surely the loss rate from thefts, accidents and so forth is higher in Los Angeles and San Francisco than in Wichita or Rapid City.

Well, the answer is that California voters, using their powerful initiative process, decided in 1988 that they had had enough of constantly rising auto insurance premiums and enacted tough new regulation of the insurance industry.

As a result, a Consumer Federation of America analysis finds, average California auto insurance expenditure declined between 1989 and 2010, while every other state in the nation saw substantial increases over that same period.

Not only have rates gone up more slowly in California than elsewhere, but auto insurance expenditures are now six percent lower in California than the national average and have declined steadily since 1989. 

Nationally, Americans spent $791 for auto insurance coverage in 2010, $240, or 43 percent, more than they did in 1989, according to the CFA analysis based on data collected by the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners.

Californians spent an average of $746 per year for auto insurance coverage in 2010, $2, or 0.3 percent less per year was spent in1989 without adjusting for inflation.

The analysis shows that, more than two decades later, California insurance costs are lower than twenty states and six percent lower than the national average, with California the only state to post a decline in auto insurance expenditures. 

Regulatory reforms

The savings in California are directly linked to the regulatory reforms of Proposition 103, approved by California voters in 1988, said J. Robert Hunter, Insurance Director for Consumer Federation of America. At that time, California insurance rates were the third highest in the nation and 36 percent higher than the national average. 

“No other state has put in place the kind of strong oversight that California voters created in 1988, and no other state has seen auto insurance prices decline,” Hunter said. “In California, as a result, Proposition 103 drivers are paying less for car insurance today than they were 25 years ago.”

Proposition 103, which took effect in 1989, created a “prior approval” system of regulation for most lines of insurance in California, including auto, homeowners, commercial and medical malpractice insurance. 

Under a prior approval system, insurance companies must present any rate change plan to the Department of Insurance and cannot implement any rate hikes or other changes without authorization from the Insurance Commissioner. 

“California’s version of prior approval regulation includes additional protections that have made the state’s insurance system much more effective than any other states’ systems,” said Hunter.