X-Message-Number: 1226
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 92 17:29:16 EDT
From:  (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: CRYONICS last minut signups

>From: Charles Platt <>
>Message-Subject: CRYONICS

>Re the Alcor fee structure: 

>This discussion is becoming muddy, because there are two 
>problems involved, but they are not being discussed 
>separately. 

>FIRST PROBLEM: How to discourage last-minute sign-ups by 
>terminal patients, which will exceed Alcor's logistical 
>abilities if they become too common. 

>Here's my suggestion for coping with the first problem: When 
>a member signs up, (s)he pays Alcor a substantial "security 
>deposit"--something like $10,000. At the end of the first 
>year of membership, if the member is still alive, Alcor gives 
>the money back. 

Well, most people don't have $10k around, certainly not $10k they
could spare, and thus there would be few if any new members.

I really believe this is a case of shooting a fly with a cannon. The
problem will only really get bad if the number of suspensions gets
high. If the number of suspensions gets high enough, a simple small
increase in suspension fees to assure that all suspensions are done at
a profit and that a full time suspension team can be paid for will be
sufficient. Think of it this way: you don't need to become a member of
the automobile buyers club to buy an auto, do you? You can go any time
you like at the last minute to a dealer and pick something up off the
lot right away. You can probably get something a bit closer to what
you want by getting him to order from the factory in advance of your
need, but either way it doesn't matter: the dealer knows that he will
get enough deals during the year, statistically speaking, to cover his
capital costs. He doesn't make you join an auto buyers club and
deposit $10,000 for the priviledge of buying from him -- that would be
silly. He just counts on having enough traffic to support his
overhead. Admittedly we don't do that much volume yet. The solution is
a combination of setting rates so we can support the needed extra
staff with the expected annual fees from suspensions. Pay as you go as
with everything else in capitalism.

>SECOND PROBLEM: How to pay for remote stand-by, which can 
>sometimes be ruinously expensive.

>Here's my suggestion for coping with the second problem: 
>simply increase the cost of neuro and whole-body suspension 
>by, say, $5,000. Since this is paid by life insurance in most 
>cases, it would not impose an onerous burden on members. The 
>annual cost increase would be trivial. True, some people will 
>end up effectively subsidizing the suspension costs of 
>others, because some people will go down quickly and others 
>will require a longer standby. But this is already the 
>situation, and I see no way around it. 

This is quite reasonable. Its a form of self insurance. What I don't
understand is why no one seems to think this is a reasonable way of
dealing with the first problem as well.

There seems to be some attitude here that we are trying to avoid
suspensions. I saw someone say "we have to protect the organization
from last minute signups" and "We have to protect Alcor from elderly
people". Lets get serious here -- Alcor is in the suspension business.
It should either set its fees for suspensions high enough to cover
costs on average or let someone else do the job. We can't treat Alcor
like some exclusive club for healthy people who aren't going to
actually die. The service is of most interest to the dying -- thats
why dying people are signing up. I see no reason this should be a
problem if we quit trying to subsidize operations with emergency
standby fees and simply run the show from suspension fees. Hell, if we
can get large numbers of last minute signups it will substantially
increase the size of the patient care fund and other large Alcor
funds, thus increasing Alcor's capacity to invest and indirectly
allowing the organization to become more stable.

Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1226