2002 Toyota Tundra SR5 from North America - All Comments

"There is a federal statute called EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) "

If you have been to a hospital anywhere near the emergency rooms, you will have seen numerous signs on the wall informing everyone of the basics of the EMTALA statute. I believe it is also federally mandated that there be numerous conspicuous copies of those signs.

"Having laws DOES NOT mean they will be OBEYED."

So why have a national health system if you don't believe that laws will be obeyed? That would provide just more laws to break.

"and PLEASE, none of this "hospitals HAVE to treat emergencies". It isn't true"

It is by statute as stated before. I mentioned that I thought it was a law and you responded with your quote above... which, by context, infers that no such law exists. Now you say that the law exists but isn't going to be obeyed because of "dumping" which is possible but restricted under Social Security Act: Section 1867 - Examination and Treatment For Emergency Medical Conditions and Women in Labor. Secs. 1866 and 1867 apply here.

These two sections are designed specifically to avoid dumping. So dumping, while still possible, places a hospital at litigation risk. A hospital actually has to show that they don't have the equipment to care for a client (they have to be able to show that the client is at greater risk by staying than by transfer) -- not simply the desire to avoid charity care (by the way the afore-mentioned refers specifically to a client who hasn't been stabilized prior to transfer). By federal law hospitals are required to assess, stabilize, and transport. Even with national healthcare, this would be necessary for more acute-care clients in rural settings (in particular).

Furthermore, you first suggested that hospitals could deny care at whim (a'la the child left to bleed to death or the guy left to die without an insulin shot), now that you find out that this isn't the case, you change your argument to say that they do it as a part of their HANDLING of a client. EMTALA doesn't completely eliminate abuse but it does limit opportunities for it.

Client handling may indeed be a beneficial aspect of national healthcare and a genuine argument for its implementation. My only concerns with what you said were that:

#1 You appeared to be unaware that EMTALA prohibits the things that you said were "happening every day"---i.e. people simply being left in or outside of emergency rooms to die.

#2 A one payer system will be expensive and is an unknown (in terms of cost). So the automakers may or may not benefit. * It's very possible, however, that the automakers WILL benefit financially from such an arrangement even though their tax burden will be significantly higher. *

"And YES, it DOES happen every day."

Prove it. Name the last 365.

ANY is too much, but your blanket statement is almost certainly wrong by its very nature. Still, as you can see, we mostly agree on the ultimate issues here.... which is why I responded at all. Otherwise we would just be sitting here saying the sky is green....No the sky is blue.....etc. ad nauseum.

"If you have been to a hospital anywhere near the emergency rooms, you will have seen numerous signs on the wall informing everyone of the basics of the EMTALA statute. I believe it is also federally mandated that there be numerous conspicuous copies of those signs."

If you have been anywhere near a highway you will notice that there are VERY conspicuous speed limit signs at very short intervals... those are ignored too.

One of the latest articles on the domestic auto industry (MSN, February 27, 2009) CLEARLY STATES that Ford's reliability is now EQUAL to "the best Japanese brands". If you check the "projected reliability" in Consumer Reports, you'll find the Fusion is ranked two levels HIGHER than Camry and one level HIGHER than Accord. The average rating for BOTH Toyota and Ford's overall line up is "average". That means they are both EQUAL (as clearly stated in the MSN article). Just how does this "prove" either is any better than the other?

A car review in USA today (February 27,2009) on the Nissan Versa was entitled "The Nissan Versa sings like a bird: "CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP" and discusses the many squeaks, rattles and clunks, and the rock hard rear seat.

Since USA Today's automotive reviewers are some of the most objective in the business, I tend to listen to most of what they say. They were the ones who took on the Mercedes ML-320 Bluetech and dared to label this supposedly "untouchable" luxury brand as being worse than a Dodge Durango. ALL of their recent reviews on domestics have been VERY GOOD. They are independent testers and do not receive money from ANY manufacturer or lobbying firm working with them.

If anyone wants a vision of what socialized health care would look like in the United States, take a good look at the Veterans Administration Hospitals. I would think that would cool off any ones enthusiasm for socialized health care.

"It even explains in the beginning of the book how the tests are done and how the results are compiled. They go buy them anonymously, just as you or I would, and drive them for years, just like you and I would. Those that have problems and break down get the worst of the ratings."

Yes they buy cars anonymously but that isn't where they get their repair info. The repair information comes from thousands of consumers who fill out the surveys. These surveys simply ask for the repairs that needed to be done on the consumer's vehicle (s). CR then compiles, categorizes, and averages these responses.

They buy the cars to do their road tests which are done much like those in C%D, Automobile, R&T, Autoweek, etc. The comments related to performance come from these road tests. CR also has a heavy emphasis on safety (like most consumer organizations).

Just thought I should clear that up.

20:52.

It is very easy to prove that Consumer Reports is bias in their recommendation (s) of Toyota. Look at all the engine failures Toyota continue to have, yet Consumer Reports continues to recommend them:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/toyota_engine.html

How can Consumer Reports rate a car company like this top? Other manufacturers do not have these problems. Consumer Reports is flat out wrong in their ratings, regardless of what you say, or how much infallibility you think they have.

I know so many people that have had terrible problems with their Toyota's (including complete engine failures) and had to sell them early at a substantial loss, bringing their families to the brink of financial ruin, just to rid themselves of all the problems. They would have a thing or two to say to you, and would probably not be polite about it.

The consumer reporting mags may be a useful starting point for some people, but they are not some great oracle. I ignore what they say about interior design, appeal, and similar points because that is simply their subjective opinion. If I like something, I'm not going to be told that I shouldn't like it just because some magazine editor couldn't find a cup holder or power port for his PC. I never use either, so I don't care.

I am interested in the ratings of mechanical quality only, because I can decide for myself whether I like the interior, seats, storage space, handling, and ride. However, even the mechanical ratings are not necessarily enough for me to give credence to. For instance, JD Powers rates the mechanical quality of my 2002 Ford with only 2 circles, while it has never needed a single mechanical (or any other kind) repair -- ever -- and it has 105,000 miles. No repairs ever -- how could perfection rate only 2 out of 5 circles???

It's the same story with the Jeep, Mercury, and Cadillac that my family owns. Perfect reliability, with JD Powers ratings of only 2-3 circles. Sorry, I will believe my own personal experience with vehicles before being a slave to somebody elses rating system.

"So when looking for a full size truck do you walk in say I need 30 MPG and I have Blue Cross Blue Shield?"

No, I walk in knowing I will have to pay $1500 MORE for a domestic vehicle because the customer has to pay the exorbitant health care costs for U.S. auto workers, which no other car maker in the world has to pay because every other civilized country provides health care for their citizens.

So explain how the free health care is paid for... maybe raise our personal income tax $1500... since when is there a free ride anywhere unless it's a tooth fairy paying.

My employer pays 100% of mine, but I suspect it's either less pay with or more pay without, and I am not in the automotive industry. So why ever overpay high profitability for inflated priced imports with those that ship their profits overseas?

Better yet, test drive and compare feature for feature and make a personal determination. Then buy.

Also, why ever settle for less than a 100,000 mile warranty in this day and age vs. charge a relatively new vehicle owner that has 51,000 miles on the odometer.

If the vehicles are so exceptional in my opinion, offer a great warranty, spend less on advertising and give more features in the vehicle. If the drivetrain is so perfect then warranty it for 100000 miles with scheduled intervals maintained.

I left imports over the warranty issue.... maybe repeat business is not as valued today. I'll try something once or twice, but not without exceptional service from now on.

16:12

All of your points have been dealt with in detail earlier in this thread.

There are real issues with the way CR reports their data and reviews. But what's the point, if you and others are content to explain everything with a conspiracy theory?

Real issues?: I know of at least three.

#1 There is real bias in their test drives and the reviews based upon them.

#2 There isn't a numerical value placed upon their symbols any more, so there may not be that much of a difference between a solid black and a solid red (much worse than average vs. much better than average) which leads to comments like "I've owned my Ford with a solid black in the area of the body integrity for 150,000 miles. When are the problems supposed to show up?" The "average" may be so good that "below average" may take in a grand total of two vehicles in a thousand, for all we know.

#3 They seem to have a "perfect vehicle" in the back of their collective mind. It is obviously some kind of reasonably efficient car, too. So ANY vehicle that strays too far from that ideal is roundly criticized even if its intended purpose is far afield of that imaginary car.

"It is very easy to prove that Consumer Reports is bias in their recommendation (s) of Toyota."

I am not so sure the bad reporting by CR is entirely intentional. They rely on voluntary reporting, which has quite a few pitfalls of its own. People who subscribe to CR in the first place are a small segment of the population. Then on top of that only 12% of subscribers respond. It is a known phenomena that people who respond to those kinds of surveys exhibit a need for approval, they feel like they have a relationship with the people doing the survey, and they feel like they want to give the answers that the surveyors want. It is a bit of a stretch to call the CR data "scientific." And it is deceptive for them to call their results "unbiased" when their very data collection method is recognized scientifically to involve some significant bias problems.

I have been involved in some marketing research in the Fortune 500 company I work for, and I have been amazed at how difficult it is to get meaningful results with all the different kinds of biases that can get introduced. In every consumer research project I have been involved in, we have seen how you can get the consumers to say anything you want just by how we set up the data collection. This is all just for internal use - we are just trying to gauge what products to make, or what features to include. But it drives us nuts because every time we do a study, we get completely different results from the last study.

"It's the same story with the Jeep, Mercury, and Cadillac that my family owns. Perfect reliability, with JD Powers ratings of only 2-3 circles. Sorry, I will believe my own personal experience with vehicles before being a slave to somebody elses rating system."

I've tried to get this point across for years. I've owned several vehicles that were rated "much worse than average". We never have had a single problem with ANY of them.

On the other hand, we've had a car the magazines all freak out over and rate as the best in the universe (Honda). It was a total disaster and was not as reliable as the very WORST domestic I've ever heard of.

I no longer mindlessly accept the myths put out by Japanese car companies. I go by my own experience and drive only domestics. My money is too hard to come by these days to spend it on something that will sit in the repair shop several days a month.

"It is a known phenomena that people who respond to those kinds of surveys exhibit a need for approval, they feel like they have a relationship with the people doing the survey, and they feel like they want to give the answers that the surveyors want. It is a bit of a stretch to call the CR data "scientific." And it is deceptive for them to call their results "unbiased" when their very data collection method is recognized scientifically to involve some significant bias problems."

That is fine. But there are several problems with your logic.

#1 I used to take their surveys. They weren't interested in how I FELT. They simply asked what went wrong with my vehicle.

#2 Your logic is only valid if a subscriber KNOWS what the surveyor wants them to say... in other words, you presume bias as a part of your premise... even though you begin by saying it is unintentional.

#3 Where is the payoff (approval)? No one is contacted directly via phone or other medium so they can "feel the love". It's just an ugly form... and there is no bias in the way it's set up (if you saw it, you'd likely agree. They ask what you drive and what went wrong. That's it.)

#4 CR itself admits that there are built-in pitfalls to this type (or any type) of data collection. So they use various mechanisms to attempt to avoid these things. Read their FAQ.

#5 It is equally a stretch to call their method biased when you are only comparing it to data collection you say you did. Who did you work for? How large were your surveys? How were they conducted? What studies are you referring to? Why would this benefit the Japanese and not the Germans, for example.

#6 Even if what you said was true and happening, wouldn't it break down over time so that, like you say, their results would be all over the map? Instead trends show up that are validated by other reporting agencies with a much less storied past. For example, go to the sections on long term reliability in Truedelta.com or JD Power. These publications mostly agree with CR so...

#7 Why would that be? They all use varying methods.

Yes, this is a science AND an art. Surveyors agree on this point. But your criticism of what they do will be taken as a REPUDIATION of what they do. Further... by this logic, ALL surveying is invalidated.

Moreover, on this forum, it furthers the argument that some have forwarded that their experience is so profound that it is of universal value. The "I've owned 25 Toyotas and I've only spent $2.50 on repairs so EVERYONE who takes care of them WILL have the same outcome... how could it be any other way?".

So do we completely abandon the only and most scientific tools at our disposal? Are we, instead, supposed to embrace the opinions and prejudices of our acquaintances; people whose knowledge, though broad by individual standards, is a mere drop in the bucket of human experience? WHAT WOULD YOU REPLACE SURVEYS WITH?

My point is that 2 people's experience HAS to be more conclusive than 1, and 10,000 is perhaps as much as a thousand times better than that even if you feel that scale begins to mitigate the value of the results.

I know that's a lot of questions, but if you cast aspersions on these organizations and their techniques, they at least deserve a detailed and specific explanation of your criticisms.

Again, I can't get over how generalized this thread has become. The reason this thread is ridiculous is because the argument has trickled down to a basic "Domestics" versus "Imports" argument. There's lots of people here who seem to be implicating that every single domestically produced product is completely and utterly reliable just because it happens to have been produced within a narrow geographic location. The term "domestic" is so generic that it's impossible to make such an assertion. When we're talking Domestic output, it could be anything from a Toyota Camry made in Kentucky, a Ford F-150 made in Michigan, to a Tesla electric roadster made in Silicon Valley. Comparatively speaking, these three are totally different cars with completely different reliability and quality distinctions.

What it boils down to is protective patriotism and the suggestion that all things American are better than all things from anywhere else because we happen to be Americans, thus we must be better than other nations and their own domestic output. I have a Weber Grill, a Maglight flashlight, a Lawnboy mower, and a Leatherman multi-tool. All American made and in my opinion the best quality for their intended application. But my truck is a Toyota because as with the previous items, it too is the best quality for the application, which is proven reliability.

The reason arguments like these never make any sense is because the products are not looked at as those made by unique and independent companies with their own corporate management and development tendencies, but rather as generic entities that are given in many respects either deserved or undeserved criticism simply because they happen to originate from either a foreign or national corporate home.

Look at it this way. Go to a hardware store. There's a choice of different tools. Yes, there's your typical selection of cheap, stamped steel push mowers with your typical little Briggs engine. It'll probably work for 4-5 years then need replacement. On the other hand, you could also get a John Deere mower with a cast deck and Kohler engine that will last 20-30 years. BOTH are American, but they are not the same quality, nor are they both better simply because they're American. The same is true when stating that all things that GM makes are equal. Let's be serious here. The Chevy Aveo is garbage. A Cadillac on the other hand is vastly better and more dependable.

Hence the point that claiming something is better based on a general nationalism is moot and pointless.