CryoNet #33069 - #33071

CryoNet - Wed 24 Nov 2010

    #33069: Re: Alcor funding minimums / "in good shape" [John de Rivaz]
    #33070: nimber of patients [Ettinger]
    #33071: the myth of growth [Charles in Arizona]

Rate This Digest: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33069%2D33071

Administrivia

To subscribe to CryoNet, send email to:
    [email protected]
with the subject line (not message _body_):
    subscribe
To unsubscribe, use the subject line:
    unsubscribe
To post a message to CryoNet, send your message to:
    [email protected]
from the same address to which you are aubscribed.
Send questions, comments, or feedback to [email protected]
with "CryoNet" or "cryonics" somewhere in the Subject line.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33069
From: "John de Rivaz" <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Alcor funding minimums / "in good shape"
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:00:39 -0000

The only way this is going to get taken any further is for Dr Stodolsky to 
have face to face discussions with lawyers representing both of the main 
cryonics service providers at their meetings. Otherwise it is always going 
to get shot down by claims it is selling life insurance without proper 
regulatory approval - even if anyone in a position to do so considers it for 
just a moment.

It is no good arguing the point on these lists -- the legal profession 
always have the casting vote on any board of directors, even though they are 
not themselves board members. If a company breaks the law, then the 
directors can face the full force of one the biggest gangs in the world - 
legislatures. Therefore they have to obey their lawyer's advice if they know 
what is good for them. Noble sacrifices wouldn't work either, not for a 
cryonics company. Once the directors were bankrupted and locked up it would 
be disbanded and the patients buried.

Of course a company lawyer should really consider any idea and if as first 
presented it breaks the law, he needs to consider a compromise that remains 
within the law and acheives some of the effect wanted. But this requires a 
lot of effort. This is what a face to face discussion could achieve.

If it is done in writing, or even a recorded conversation, the company 
lawyer runs the risk of being sued for showing people "how to get round the 
law". But there seems to me to be little difference between that and 
reaching a compromise over an idea to remain within the law.

Maybe this is asking too much, but I can not see the idea being implemented 
(or Dr Stodolsky convinced that it is completely illegal) otherwise.

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more

----- Original Message ----- 
Message #33068
Subject: Re: Alcor funding minimums / "in good shape"
From: David Stodolsky <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:26:26 +0100
References: <[email protected]>

<del>
Previously, I suggested a 'pay as you go' plan for suspension funding. This 
would have the advantage of being able to raise rates to adjust for 
inflation or new technology, without triggering the disputes mentioned. It 
also would enhance growth, and with a pay as you go plan, that would mean 
many 'new' members paying for the suspension of a much smaller number of 
'old' members. This approach would effectively cut costs, while ensuring 
suspensions would be provided, even under monetary instability.

If we could get back to the growth rates we were seeing up to 2004, it would 
mean that prices could be cut sharply:

http://cryin.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$52
<del> 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33069

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33070
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:54:25 -0500 (EST)
Subject: nimber of patients

Several recent posts have said that there are "fewer than 100" cryopatients 
 currently. Actually, it is more than 212, which is a teensy bit better.
 
R.E.
------------
 

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33070

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33071
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:50:37 -0700
Subject: the myth of growth
From: Charles in Arizona <[email protected]>

David Stodolsky, wrote: "If we could get back to the growth rates we
were seeing up to 2004, it would mean that prices could be cut
sharply."

This is nonsense. Robert Freitas has performed a huge service (for
free, I believe) by digging up the real numbers, which show that each
additional Alcor member has imposed a net cost on the organization. In
other words, growth has been a financial burden. I have been arguing
that this is likely for years. There are no economies of scale during
this "middle period" of cryonics, where the organization is not large
enough to set up regional centers.

The Freitas document is here:
http://www.alcor.org/Library/pdfs/EconometricModelOfAlcorFinances.pdf

Don't expect an easy read; it is written in a formal style. Do expect
to reach some very disturbing and, I think, incontrovertible
conclusions.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33071

----------------------------------------------------------------------

End of CryoNet Digest
*********************