‘Tis the season to do lots of online shopping, and while the internet can be a safe and easy place to do business, there are also plenty of scammers in the cyber world trying to target unsuspecting consumers.  Don’t give them the chance. There’s a great website that can help you to avoid becoming a victim of an internet fraud scheme.  The site is ever so appropriately called LooksTooGoodtoBeTrue.com.

It was developed and is maintained by a joint federal law enforcement and industry task force.  The website offers Consumer Alerts on potential scams trying to target shoppers and ways to protect yourself.

Here are some key tips the site offers to avoid becoming a victim of cyber fraud:

• Do not respond to unsolicited (spam) e-mail.
• Do not click on links contained within an unsolicited e-mail.
• Be cautious of e-mail claiming to contain pictures in attached files, as the files may contain viruses. Only open attachments from known senders. Always run a virus scan on attachment before opening.
• Avoid filling out forms contained in e-mail messages that ask for personal information.
• Always compare the link in the e-mail to the web address link you are directed to and determine if they match.
• Log on directly to the official Web site for the business identified in the e-mail, instead of “linking” to it from an unsolicited e-mail. If the e-mail appears to be from your bank, credit card issuer, or other company you deal with frequently, your statements or official correspondence from the business will provide the proper contact information.
• Contact the actual business that supposedly sent the e-mail to verify that the e-mail is genuine.
• If you are requested to act quickly or there is an emergency, it may be a scam. Fraudsters create a sense of urgency to get you to act impulsively.
• If you receive a request for personal information from a business or financial institution, always look up the main contact information for the requesting company on an independent source (phone book, trusted internet directory, legitimate billing statement, etc.) and use that contact information to verify the legitimacy of the request.
• Remember if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

If you do become a victim of internet fraud, the LooksToGoodtoBeTrue.com website also offers a link for you to  file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center, the United States Postal Inspection Service and the Federal Trade Commission.  You can also see the latest “FBI email Scam Alerts!”

Don’t be a victim this holiday season. Educate yourself on the latest scams and tricks fraudsters are using to try and separate you from your money.

Safety is one of the major concerns for anyone considering the purchase of a car. But how do you go about rating a car’s safety? Based purely on the laws of physics, size matters.  A 5694 pound Cadillac Escalade in a collision with a 2668 pound Mini Cooper is no contest. As Sancho Panza says in Man of La Mancha: “Whether the stone hits the pitcher or the pitcher hits the stone, it’s going to be bad for the pitcher.” In the long run, however, big is not always safer. The Hummer H3, for example, was big and heavy, but had a mediocre safety record.

Different Ratings

There are many ways to rate a car’s safety. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), for example, takes many factors into consideration, including roof strength, secondary protections, and actual safety record. The resulting ratings by the IIHS for 2011 cars list eleven large cars, eleven small cars, twelve midsize cars, and 12 midsize SUV’s as the “Top Safety Picks” for 2011, but doesn’t rank the cars within each category.  Just about every car manufacturer has at least one, and often several, models in the “Top Safety Picks.”

For the new 2012 models, however, the IIHS has listed the top five models on its “Top Safety Pick.”  They are:

1. Chevrolet Sonic;
2. Ford Focus;
3. Honda Civic;
4. Audi A6;
5. Volkswagen Passat.

Forbes Magazine, using its own criteria, ranked the BMW 5 Series, the Cadillac CTS, the Subaru Legacy, and the Hyundai Sonata as the safest cars on the road.

CWN Safety Picks

Consumer Warning Network decided to take a simpler approach. We looked at the IIHS information, compiled by its Highway Loss Data Institute. We reviewed the data to find out which cars came out on top, regardless of size or cost, based on actual insurance claims for personal injury, collision and medical payments.

We looked at average claims instead of total claims. By using this approach, we were able to even the playing field between cars that sell in high volume– which would be expected to have higher total insurance claims– and those that sell in low volume.

Between the years 2008-2010, the answers are somewhat surprising.

Bodily Injury

Between 2008 and 2010, the five cars with the lowest average bodily injury insurance claims, as compared to all other cars, are in order:

1. Chevrolet Corvette;
2. Subaru Outback;
3. Volkswagen Jetta;
4. Chevrolet Equinox 4DR;
5. Acura TSX.

Yes, the light, fast Corvette actually has, on average, lower insurance claims for bodily injury. This means that Corvette owners present lower average claims to their insurance companies for bodily injury. There is most probably a good reason for why this is so. Corvette owners are more likely to “baby” their special car, and less likely to drive their Corvette on long trips or in heavy commuter traffic. As for the others on the list, a combination of safety features results in lower average bodily injury claims.

During that same period, the most dangerous cars when it comes to bodily injury claims are in order:

1. Dodge Avenger;
2. Mitsubishi Galant;
3. Mitsubishi Eclipse;
4. Chrysler Sebring;
5. Ford Mustang.

Each of these cars is more than twice as dangerous as any of the cars in the top list in terms of bodily injury claims. Again, driving habits of typical owners may play a part in some of these results.

Overall Safety

Looking at all aspects of insurance claims, from personal injury to vehicle damage, how do cars stack up during the 2008-2010 period?  The top five cars overall are as follows:

1. Chevrolet Corvette;
2. Chevrolet Equinox;
3. Ford Edge 4DR 4WD;
4. Dodge Nitro 4DR 4WD;
5. Ford Explorer 4DR 4WD.

Coming in close behind these leaders are the Honda Accord and the Acura TL 4DR.

Conclusion

There’s no sure fire way to come to a final answer on car safety, with so many variables to consider. Regardless of safety features, size, interior reinforcement, and strength of materials, however, when it comes to which cars are resulting in fewer average claims for actual bodily injury and damage to a vehicle, insurance statistics provide one good way of coming up with an objective standard.

The findings from the study come at a time the Americans are already being grappled with a weak economy and job losses. The study showed that premiums increased 2.1 per cent faster than workers’ wages and 3.2 per cent more than the general inflation. Since 2001, family premiums have increased 113 per cent, compared with 34 per cent for workers’ wages and 27 per cent for inflation.

Click here to read more in the International Business Times.

We all know health care expenses have risen dramatically, not just in America but around the world, as more sophisticated and expensive medical procedures become available. America has, however, the most effective health care system in the world – right? Wrong. Compared to eighteen other major economies around the world, the United States comes in almost dead last! We spend the most by far for what almost ends up being the least effective health care.

Cost-effectiveness study

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1. Ireland
2. United Kingdom
3. New Zealand
4. Austria
5. Australia
6. Italy
7. Finland
8. Japan
9. Spain
10. Sweden
11. Canada
12. Netherlands
13. France
14. Norway
15. Greece
16. Germany
17. USA
18. Portugal
19. Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

But what about the great medical facilities within the United States? Eight of the top ten hospitals in the world are located in the United States. An Arab sheik with tons of money will come to Johns Hopkins or Massachusetts General for his cancer treatment. That gives a clue to the answer. If you have all the money in the world, America is the place to come for the best health care. If, however, you live on a budget, you’re better off in any of the other top sixteen countries on the list, than here in America.

We may not be number one in the world, or even number fifteen, but we sure don’t have any of that socialized medicine!

It’s a given that grocery stores want to encourage people to buy more than one of every item in order to increase sales and profits. When you see “bargain” advertising for what seems to be a special price if you buy more than one, you’re probably tempted to do just that– buy more, even if you don’t really want two of the same item, or three of them, or whatever the sign indicates. That can result in buying unneeded extra items that may go to waste, but at least you’re saving money, right?

Well, not exactly. More likely than not, if something is advertised as “two for $3,” and you decide to buy just one, the cash register will ring up $1.50, exactly half of the “special” price. You really didn’t need to buy that extra unneeded item. Try it sometime, and you will see that “two for . . .” sales in grocery stores are nothing more than a way to encourage you to buy more than you otherwise might. So just buy what you need, knowing that the actual price is just half of the “two for . . . ” special.

There have, on the other hand, been some stories of pricing scams that truly are completely misleading. Some stores might advertise an item as “$3 -or- two for $5,” indicating that there is truly a dollar savings if you buy two instead of one. Yet, if you do just buy one, the register rings it up at $2.50, half of the “two for $5″ price, instead of the misleading $3 advertised price. If you see such a practice at a store, call it to the manager’s attention that their signs are deceptive.

The moral is, when grocery shopping, don’t be fooled by signs indicating that if you buy more than one you will save money. It may well turn out that you’re falling for a marketing scheme to get you to buy more than you actually need.

By Terry Smiljanich:

Ever been the victim of “slamming?” That’s when someone switches your telephone company without your permission. The FCC has rules protecting the consumer from such practices, including the inability of the slammer to charge you for its unauthorized telephone services. But one consumer recently found out that these protections aren’t enough to prevent you from suffering adverse consequences, including the temporary loss of your telephone services and endless bureaucratic nonsense.

Jan Brown, a resident of Tampa, Florida, recently received a marketing flyer from Bright House touting its bundled (telephone, internet, television) services. She was currently receiving telephone services from Verizon. She called Bright House simply to make inquiries about its offer, and a Bright House representative described its services and prices. In the process of the discussion, the representative took down the telephone number of Mrs. Brown, who said she would think about the offer and call them back.

End of the story? No. A few days later, people trying to call Brown received endless busy signals, and her telephone services were completely shut down. At first Verizon offered simple solutions such as rebooting battery backups, etc., but eventually told her that Verizon had received an order from Bright House to have all telephone numbers in the household ported directly to Bright House. Brown had never given permission for this to be done, but Verizon had simply agreed to the request by Bright House.

Bright House apologized for the problem, telling her that a sales representative had made a mistake. Unfortunately, said Bright House, according to FCC rules it could take up to 30 days for Verizon to get the service back.

So, free telephone service for the interim? Not quite. Bright House stated that since a “third party authorization” had not been completed by the Brown family, the telephone numbers could not be brought on line. But wasn’t that the point? The Browns had specifically not authorized the Bright House service and didn’t want it, so why should they “authorize” it? Sorry, said Bright House, it’s Verizon’s problem now since they had informed Verizon that the Bright House service was being cancelled. Talk to Verizon.

You can imagine the rest of the story – endless telephone conversations back and forth, waiting for uninformed supervisors to enter the picture and promise a resolution, etc. etc. In order to accomplish a “third party authorization” to get the numbers ported back to Verizon, the Browns had to go through an automated process (you know – press one if . . ., press 2 if . . .). It took several attempts, and several more telephone calls to get the whole thing straightened out.

In the process, the Browns were without telephone services for 8 days. They still have to deal with Verizon regarding a credit for the time their services were completely out, plus the fact that during this time they had to make considerable use of their cell phones to get everything straightened out, resulting in higher bills to AT&T.

Obviously something is wrong with the whole process.

• How can a simple demand from a Bright House sales representative cause Verizon to immediately start porting all calls to the new company?
• How can Bright House demand that a victim of its slamming “authorize” the unauthorized services while waiting for the problem to get resolved?
• Why can’t two technologically advanced companies like Bright House and Verizon not just pick up the telephone between themselves and work out the problem in an instant?

The lesson here to all consumers is to be very careful when inquiring of a telephone company about switching services. Don’t give out your telephone number, and be sure to insist at the end of the call that you have NOT made a decision and that your telephone services will remain with your current company. It shouldn’t be necessary to state the obvious, but in light of the above story, it can be all too easy to find yourself caught between clueless supervisors and automated machines.

Why is it that every time you turn around these days, you find a lawmaker up on Capitol Hill trying to stick it to the consumer?  Of course, it’s very important to protect multi-million dollar corporations from those pesky people who buy stuff from them; we all know that.  But gosh, isn’t this going a bit far.  First, we must ensure our oil companies continue to get their tax breaks, and now Republican Congressman from North Carolina Patrick McHenry is taking cheap shots at the person trying to set up a Consumer Protection Bureau.

Consumer Advocate and Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren came up with the crazy idea that there should be someone looking out for consumers these days, since they’re getting ripped off so much.

Flashback to the mortgage meltdown, bogus banking fees and credit card interest rates,  just to name a few. Anyhow, she’s now working on setting up a federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and went before a House committee to talk about it.  Enter Representative McHenry.  He attacked Warren repeatedly, calling her part of a “super class of administrative elites.”

It seems McHenry is upset that Warren is proposing to simplify consumer contracts with companies, so there won’t be so much small print.  Warren has come up with a two-page mortgage contract to help homeowners avoid problems like signing up for mortgages they don’t understand, but apparently Representative McHenry thinks it’s a good idea to trick consumers into signing up for something they don’t really want.  Companies make more money that way, you know.  McHenry was clearly gunning for his corporate buddies.

Ever since last year when Warren’s idea for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau became a reality with the Dodd-Frank Act, Republicans have been trying to eliminate any power it might have to help consumers. Why have consumers become the enemy?  Are we really that dispensable to these politicians who prefer corporate interests over consumer interests?  Maybe it’s time to send a message.  The next time you head to the voting booth, think about your friends in Congress.  Think really hard, about who their friends really are.

By Terry Smiljanich:

Here’s a strange turn of events.  Southwest Airlines has had the distinction of being rated the safest major airline in the world,  as we’ve reported here on Consumer Warning Network.  That rating was based on the number of fatal crashes it has experienced since 1970, i.e., no such crashes. But given the recent news regarding fatigue cracks in its aging air fleet, resulting in a portion of a plane’s roof coming off and reports of further cracks in similar Boeing 737′s, should it still be regarded as safe, much less the safest?

I believe the answer is yes. Aging air fleets are a problem for all major airlines, and Southwest does not stand alone in this regard. This is not the first time a passenger plane in flight has suffered a partial failure of its roof structure. In 1988, an Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 suffered a similar fate. The failure was so sudden that a flight attendant was swept away to her death as a consequence.

Aging Fleets

Fatigue cracks in airplane structures can be minor and almost undetectable until it is too late. The FAA requires periodic inspections of all airplanes in service, including inspections for such cracks. In fact, the FAA is currently considering more stringent standards for such inspections. The current political rage to further deregulate the industry was threatening to put a halt to such new standards, but that could change now due to concerns exposed by the Southwest incident. The FAA has ordered inspections be done with an electro-magnetic process that detects cracks invisible to the naked eye.

Our aging airplane fleet has been a concern for several years. In 1991 Congress passed the Aging Aircraft Safety Act, requiring more frequent inspections of older airplanes. By 2006, the average age of American Airline planes was 14 years. The Boeing 737, which is the workhorse of the airline industry, was first manufactured in 1967, and some of its older planes are still flying.

Southwest states that its average fleet age is eleven years, but the 737′s are the oldest planes in its fleet, with an age ranging between 14 and 27 years.

Tougher Inspections

On April 4, 2011, following the Southwest incident, the FAA announced an industry-wide program of inspections of the older Boeing 737′s needed to be implemented. Transportation Secretary LaHood stated: “Last Friday’s incident was very serious and could result in additional action depending on the outcome of the investigation.”

The recent incident with the Southwest Airline flight is yet another warning that the industry must pay closer attention to the creeping age of its fleet. Southwest grounded several flights and is engaged in a stepped up program of inspecting its aircraft for signs of fatigue in the structures of its planes. Rather than further deregulation in this critical area, we should demand stricter standards from our airline industry.

Southwest’s reaction to this incident is to be commended, and yes, it still remains the only major airline with no fatalities. Interestingly, Aloha Airlines is also a very safe airline, with just that one fatality in 1988.

CWN’s John Newcomer first alerted consumers to  this looming issue two years ago, explaining that in a short sale, most mortgage companies only release the property from the mortgage lien, not the remaining debt.

Just because the mortgage company has consented to the sale and released the lien on the property, it does not mean the borrower has been released from the debt.  In fact, the release agreement often spells it out, but unfortunately it’s spelled out in “lawyer language.”

Click here to read this sobering report on definciency judgements from reporter Kris Hundley with the St. Petersburg Times.

By Terry Smiljanich:

The Deceptive Game of Automatic Renewal

Are your children playing too much Xbox LIVE and ignoring their homework? Are they on an automatic renewal program through your credit card? Have you tried to cancel the automatic renewal of the yearly charges by Microsoft and run into a problem? Join the crowd.

Popular Games Suck You In

Although some gamers complain about the fact that Microsoft charges a fee for allowing its Xbox games to be played over the internet with other live players, many still like the features of Xbox. Popular games such as ”Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2,” “Call of Duty: Black Ops,” “World of Warcraft,” and “Halo 3” attract millions of players who like the live action feel of playing against friends or strangers. Some games, like Halo 3, can only be played on Xbox consoles. Others can also be played on Playstation or Wii.

“Xbox LIVE Gold” allows the player to do so on Xbox machines for a yearly fee of $49. You can sign up directly on your console or by visiting the Xbox web site. First, however, you are told you have to create a Microsoft.com account and allow automatic charging to your credit card. This is where things start getting tricky.

Cancelling Your Subscription

The problem comes when and if you try to cancel the automatic renewal of your account with Xbox Live. Simple, right? Just click on . . . what exactly? For what should be obvious reasons, Microsoft has made it very, very difficult to figure out how to cancel your subscription. No matter what you try to click to change your account, you keep getting told that you must call a customer service representative to change your account.

Call that number and you will almost certainly hear a pleasant voice tell you that “your call is important to us” and that all lines are currently busy. After waiting and waiting, you are tempted to give up. If you are lucky enough to get through, it will take some doing to get the representative, “Joe” from India, to cooperate and actually cancel your account automatic renewal. Sometimes, even when you are told it has been accomplished, you will find that your next renewal will be made anyway, despite your instructions.

The problem got bad enough for some customers that they even turned to class action lawsuits to complain about the practice.

We all understand that Microsoft loves being able to automatically hit your credit card on a periodic basis, but does it have to be quite so devious as to throw petty little hurdles in your path? Why can’t there be a simple self-intuitive way to cancel the automatic renewal?

Two Ways to Cancel Your Subscription

There are two ways to do this that each avoid having to deal with call waiting and “Joe” in customer service. Instead of dealing directly with Microsoft, call your credit card company. If your account has been charged against your wishes, the credit card company will put the amount “in dispute.” You will probably then get a notice of a credit to your account for the disallowed charge. Whether your account has been renewed or not, you can and should tell your credit card company to disallow any further charges on the account by Microsoft. That will stop such unwanted charges dead cold.

Guess what happens next? You’ll get a friendly email from Xbox saying it is having trouble renewing your account and to please contact the company. You should tell Xbox that its message is important to you, but you can’t get back to it just yet.

Another way has apparently been figured out by someone who has been through the same problem. By clicking through somewhat complicated options on the Xbox site, there might be a way to accomplish this without resorting to a call to your credit card company. You can try to follow the instructions given in a You Tube video, but we haven’t tried it and can’t vouch for its success.

Now if we could just do something about getting in touch with customer service representatives at your credit card company!