[INDEX]
 


  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

FUNDING MINIMUMS comment by CPlatt

December 11 2010 at 3:47 PM
Rick  (Login recreation)
Owner
from IP address 98.165.81.74

 
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=33071




You can respond to this entry without logging in but you won't see it unless or until I approve it.

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

CPlatt's Cryonics magazine article--- and rejection of further articles on this issue

December 11 2010, 4:03 PM 

I'll find the link to the article by Cplatt on this issue and more on the rejection of the Alcor's editorial board on this.

You can respond to this entry without logging in but you won't see it unless or until I approve it.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

I think Alcor really has to explain the reason for rejecting Platt's article.

December 21 2010, 10:10 PM 

I'd like to see this followed up on.

You can respond to this entry without logging in but you won't see it unless or until I approve it.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

Part I and II of articles that won't appear in Alcor's Cryonics magazine

December 25 2010, 5:16 AM 

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32975

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32976





No log in needed at this time to post. Let's hear your story on your life insurance! The funding gap situation at Alcor is serious and demands everyone's attention.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

Why assume revenue from a case can only be spent on that case, balance to PCTF?

December 25 2010, 5:21 AM 

CPlatt wrote...

Suppose an organization has a strict rule that revenue from doing a
case can only be spent directly on that case, with the surplus going
into a Patient Care Trust.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32975

My comment-- Let's do the opposite... Suppose there is no such strict rule... t

No log in needed at this time to post. Let's hear your story on your life insurance! The funding gap situation at Alcor is serious and demands everyone's attention.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

People realized insurance would lose value over time ... they did? I missed that.

December 25 2010, 5:27 AM 

I feel like an idiot. Platt writes..

quote
Of course, people realized that since the cost of cryopreservation
would tend to increase with time, the insurance would lose value
relative to the service it was supposed to buy. But to a 25-year-old
activist grappling with everyday challenges associated with running a
small undercapitalized company, death must have seemed a remote
prospect, decades away. Before then, no doubt, some key event would
change the public perception of cryonics. The concept was so obvious,
it was--well, too important to fail! Members would come flooding in,
and no one would be worrying about money anymore.
unquote
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32976

My comment... I forgot about that completely. When I bought my first life insurance policy in 1978 for an amount of 22K, after reading Prospect... I didn't extend my inflation/tech curve to see that I'd actually need a nominal about more than 10X that... maybe 20X that by 2057 when I'd be 100. I can't recall if I had thought about economy of scale... probably not, although I was a student in a social science/ business faculty... so I could potentially have thought of that.



No log in needed at this time to post. Let's hear your story on your life insurance! The funding gap situation at Alcor is serious and demands everyone's attention.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

False minimums established to dupe newcomers... should have correlated to life expectency.

December 25 2010, 5:38 AM 

CPlatt wrote

quote
As Alcor started accepting more members, there was a conscience-driven
move to encourage the newcomers to buy more than the minimum life
insurance. "Twice the minimum" was sometimes suggested as a safe hedge
against inflation. Was this multiple based on a calculation of the
likely cost increase of procedures during the member's likely
lifetime? I don't think so. In fact, so far as I can tell, that
calculation was never performed until the 1990s, when an Alcor member
named Eric Klien did the math and started posting messages about it on
CryoNet. Klien showed beyond any doubt that doubling the minimum would
not be sufficient if (a) a member was likely to live for another 40 or
50 years and (b) the cost of cryopreservation was likely to grow by a
modest annual inflation rate.

No one could prove Klien wrong, but his message was not welcome, and
Alcor did not revise its policies. No one wanted to increase minimums
unduly, because this would discourage people from joining.

unquote

My comment...
That might be the crux of the problem... the urgency to create a cryonics organization outweighed the truth. Now in 20/20 hindsight, it seems obvious that the age of the new member would have to be correlated to a rough guess as to what the nominal insurance would have to be...

Kleins' messages are here.
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/findmsgs.cgi?author=eric_s_klien

I can't find the articles CPlatt refers to but here's a post that details some financial squabbles...
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=1359



No log in needed at this time to post. Let's hear your story on your life insurance! The funding gap situation at Alcor is serious and demands everyone's attention.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

Only 250 are underfunded, estimated by CPlatt-- but with respect to new minimums, not ...

December 25 2010, 5:43 AM 

...not lifespans. We don't know the life expectencies of 1000 Alcor members... and that means that potentially closer to 1000 members are underfunded... not with respect to Alcor's own stated minimums.. which are still too small!!! -- but rather with respect to the real future of inflation and technology without economies of scale and less expensive yet better preservations.. not to mention the reanimation funds. We're ALL underfunded with respect to reanimation funds.

No log in needed at this time to post. Let's hear your story on your life insurance! The funding gap situation at Alcor is serious and demands everyone's attention.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

Funding gap calculation

December 25 2010, 5:44 AM 

How big will the underfunding problem become? Projecting this number
would be simple enough, for anyone with access to Alcor data:

1. Check each member's funding.

2. Look up the probable life expectancy for each member
from actuarial tables, and project Alcor's probable
funding minimum at the likely time of death, assuming
that minimums continue to increase by an average of 3 or
4 percent per year. Subtract the member's grandfathered
funding amount from the probable future minimum at the
likely time of death, to find the member's probable
funding gap (in a few cases, it could be a surplus).

3. Add up all the funding gaps, subtract the total of
surpluses, and the result would be Alcor's total
probable unfunded liability for performing
cryopreservations.

Unfortunately, so far as I know, no one has ever done this
calculation. Therefore, the likely future dimensions of the
underfunding problem remain unknown.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=32976


No log in needed at this time to post. Let's hear your story on your life insurance! The funding gap situation at Alcor is serious and demands everyone's attention.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

CPlatt's new funding minimum is FAR HIGHER than Alcor's current funding mins!!!

December 25 2010, 6:09 AM 

Cplatt wrote

quote
project Alcor's probable
funding minimum at the likely time of death
quote

My comment... THIS IS AMAZING... this is an absolutely key insight... the "probably funding minimum at the LIKELY time of death"... THAT represents the TRUE minimum.

This corresponds to Wowk's idea of increasing amount of insurance 2X for every 20 years...

What it means is that those of us who are underfunded NOW... with 50K neuros... are in a HOPELESS and POINTLESS condition... financially.. with respect to what we're GOING to get... at likely time of death... and therefore the premiums and membership dues are a waste.... we're contributing to the organization without providing cryonics HOPE to ourselves... and Alcor knows this... and knew it all along!

quote
No one wanted to increase minimums
unduly, because this would discourage people from joining.
unquote

My comment... BECAUSE THIS WOULD DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM JOINING??? Well... duh! I guess it would... I you sell cryonics by saying you'll need a TRUE MINIMUM... of... whatever amount... on a table of years....
1990 -- 50K
2000 -- 100K
2020 -- 250K
2050 -- 500K
.... and that your insurance needs to be in the amount that corresponds with your year of expected deanimation... then that would have been the intellectually honest thing to do... membership dues would have been paid over those ears as well.,... and the true "cost of cryonics" becomes too much for most people.. but it would be an honest assessment of the situation.





No log in needed at this time to post. Let's hear your story on your life insurance! The funding gap situation at Alcor is serious and demands everyone's attention.


    
This message has been edited by recreation from IP address 98.165.81.74 on Dec 25, 2010 6:15 AM


 
 Respond to this message   
John David Galt
(no login)
99.185.250.59

Lack of planning by the individual is not the main problem.

September 6 2011, 7:12 PM 

Even if Alcor had been up front about the likely minimum funding needed (and the friends I signed up with had not given non-binding assurances of grandfathering), most life insurance companies won't write a policy above, say, 20 times the insured's annual salary. The insurance industry simply considers that the purpose of life insurance is to protect your family from the loss of your income, and thus, anything above that amount suggests to them that some sort of fraud, at the very least, may be going on.

This is one of several reasons I advocate that cryonics organizations offer prepayment plans. Until cryonics becomes mainstream, getting insurance will always have this problem (and worse, if cryonics does become mainstream then the insurance companies may redefine "death" so that their product will be useless to us).

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.3.25

that's true

September 21 2011, 11:34 AM 

good point.

I didn't see your answer till now... I'll fill in email responses from now on or check my forums more often.

What you're saying is cryonics has ALWAYS perpetrated insurance fraud on that level-- and that they have limited fraud already... which is interesting...

Even if I had insured to 20X my salaray.. it would have been say.... 250,000 way back when... which would have been good to go right now....

So plug numbers into your point and you can see that your point is not as sharp as you thought.

Interesting insight.

 
 Respond to this message   
Rick
(Login recreation)
Owner
98.165.81.74

Did Alcor reject Platt's article because it imbuess HOPELESSNESS and lead to dropouts?

December 25 2010, 6:20 AM 

?

No log in needed at this time to post. Let's hear your story on your life insurance! The funding gap situation at Alcor is serious and demands everyone's attention.

 
 Respond to this message   
 
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Find more forums on Network54Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  
[INDEX]