That’s funny, I read Consumer Reports a lot and I have never had a problem finding the EXACT same model number that they list for a product. However, I do shop at places like Best Buy, Sears, Lowes, etc.
I have heard that places like Walmart have companies build them subpar models with “off” model numbers so they can buy and sell them at cheaper prices.
OK.
Suppose I provide you with information about an individual who needs $50,000 of health care and can’t afford it. Are you willing to put up this money out of your bank account (or sell your assets as necessary)?
If not, does this show you to be “cruel, heartless and narrow-minded”?
Oh fuck off. I’m fine with my taxes going to help other Americans. Better than going to kill innocent people in bogus wars.
Right, but then don’t you see that the “figuring it out” is a political question?
That doesn’t explain why Consumer Reports advocating UHC in general is a political issue.
I personally don’t see why it has to be. Except that those who most often block and bitch happen to be Republicans. Which brings me back to which party is cruel, heartless, and narrow-minded.
If CR had opposed UHC, would you see that as political?
I question whether there was any such email. I’ve been a member for years, and I get all kinds of email from them, but I’ve never gotten anything like this. I have to wonder whether it was some other organization in the guise of Consumers Union.
I would like the OP to post the body of the email.
I could have sworn I responded to this earlier, but my post isn’t there. 
Anyway, long story short: no, as long as they are doing so in the consumer interest.
As several people have already said, this is completely untrue.
CR buys all the products it tests, anonymously, right from the same stores we all go to.
And the idea that they get products early is ridiculous – for example, their April issue is just coming out – that is the annual automotive issue, rating all the new cars. But the new models came out last fall, several months ago. It takes them months to test all the new cars, and make their evaluations. The ones that get early, carefully prepped demo models of new cars are all the writers for auto mags – and you hardly ever see a bad review in those mags.
The one criticism that has some accuracy is the issue of unique models, especially in electronic items. It’s been a common practice for some years for the big box electronics stores, like Circuit City, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, to ask a manufacturer like Sony, Phillips, etc. to produce a model for them, that meets certain specs. Or even a range of models, from basic to most enhanced models. As they were major customers, they got that. But in recent years, they have been asking the electronics manufacturers to make those models exclusive, not selling them to anyone else. So you might see the Sony player model 123 only in Best Buy stores. And a pretty similar version, model 456 is only sold by Circuit City. That does make comparison shopping a bit harder, since you can’t compare identical models. And cuts down on price competition; most price guarantees said “if you find the same model selling for less …”.
But this is a tactic of the big box stores, not something CR magazine did. They do try to compare similar electronics items, even when they are different model numbers. And the big box electronics stores are disappearing, anyway. Circuit City was the latest to go; Best Buy is about the only remaining nationwide one.
And this isn’t that new – Sears Kenmore stoves have been made by one of the other stove manufacturers for Sears, to Sears specs, for years.
Nor does this prevent consumers from comparing different models. Buyers have no trouble comparing the Ford pickup truck to the Chevy, Dodge, & Toyota models and picking one.
That’s very nice of you.
But that doesn’t explain why you are not fine with otherwise sharing your resources so that other people’s health care needs can be met. You’ve said that in allocation of resources “heath, education and safety should come before anything else, then allocate what’s left to everyone else”, but you are being inconsistent in your application of this. I suspect that you personally have more than “health, education and safety” but you are unwilling to give up those things in order that others should have “health, education and safety”.
ISTM that by your own position this makes you cruel and narrowminded.
No. Your “Al Gore still uses energy” brand argument is complete bullshit.
As an alternative position, do you believe that America should have a military force? If so, are you ready to pay $150,000 out of pocket to provide an armored HMMWV (humvee) for our national defense? If not, you must be a complete hypocrite.
I support UHC - I think it’s right and just and economically for the best for the country, and am ready to give up my proportional share in the overall cost. I’m not ready to give up some wildly disproportionate amount to make some insignificant advance towards that end, and there’s no equivalence between those positions.
I too call “cite” on the OP (who seems strangely absent from his own thread). I’ve known CU to advocate for general issues it decides are important to consumers, but not by sending email “solicitations”.
If some of you choose to argue the actual merits or lack thereof for UHC, at least recognize it is a different subject from the OP.
It is also a financial and moral issue.
A quick search turns up this: http://www.consumersunion.org/health/summdc599.htm
I don’t see what the problem is.
I’m not sure if you’ve followed the conversation here, because your response is out of context.
If someone posted your final paragraph as their position, and I responded with my line of argument here, it would be logically flawed, as you note. But that’s not the discussion here.
What we are discussing is the claim, by Equipoise, that anyone who opposes UHC is necessarily “cruel, heartless and narrow-minded”. And he supported this by taking the absolutist position that as regards to allocating cost in society “I don’t know. I don’t care. It’s not my place to figure it out. It’s just that as far as I’m concerned, heath, education and safety should come before anything else, then allocate what’s left to everyone else.” My response is valid in that context.
Once you agree that there is some point at which the amount is too disproportionate for the approach to be worthwhile, then it’s just a question of where to draw the line. You draw it in one place and others draw it elsewhere. Live and let live.
[This is even besides for other considerations about the broader impact of socialism on productivity, but I’m continuing the conversation as it developed here prior to my post.]
There’s nothing morally or ethically wrong with CU doing this. Nonetheless, it can turn off potential members. Like me, as noted above. The primary reason that I’ve never been a member is that I disagree with most of their lobbying efforts.
What I want is an operation that limits itself to finding out which is the best dishwasher. Not one that lobbies the government to force everyone into a particular dishwashing system.
Nope. While it may be out of context to the overall thread, it is directly responsive to your line of argument. Whether or not someone is able or willing to make an extraordinary exchange with someone else has no bearing on their opinions about what our societal priorities should be or the means by which we as a society should achieve them.
But it has a bearing on whether they can support their position by claiming an absolutist principle.
Nope. Arguing that we absolutely oughta put health, education and safety first as national priorities is independent of whether I’m willing to sacrifice myself fo save someone else.