X-Message-Number: 13799
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: #13795 Paying cash, and offering price options - some comments
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:21:09 -0700

In Message #13795, David Pizer wrote in part:

> The fact that most suspensions are NOT paid for with cash as Charles
points
> out should be evidence that hardly anyone feels the risk is worth our
> asking price.

I believe that for most people cash purchases over $5,000 are extremely
rare.

I can think of one parallel to illuminate this suggestion that paying cash
somehow indicates greater personal commitment.

Since the end of WW II the mass media has promoted the idea of "the American
Dream" of home ownership in the USA.  From that time to the present, most
Americans see the home mortgage as the path to that dream being fulfilled.
(The humerous thing about this is that it is actually impossible to truly
own a home in the US.*  See below explanation).

It seems to me that using insurance for cryonics is not that different from
using a mortgage to "buy" a house.  Most people in the US simply do not pay
cash for large purchases over around $5,000.  They do often struggle to come
up with cash down payments except for the huge number of
government-subsidized load programs (FHA, VA, etc.) where no cash down
payment is required.  I recall that this accounts for about half or more of
all US house mortgages.

In other words, using a debt instrument (mortgage) to fund the purchase of a
home is not different in kind from using life insurance to fund a cryonics
commitment.  Both require usually regular payments to a third party for the
item being purchased because the cash price is seldom available on that
level.

Yet the popular fiction of "home ownership" in the US does not alter the
fact that those who sign the mortgage papers are making a deep commitment -
which is underlined by the aditional fact that it is almost always much more
expensive to "own" than to rent.

*(NO ONE in the USA ever truly owns real estate (as they do for in some
other countries like Portugal).  On average, 20% of all US citizens move
every five years, so the standard thirty year mortgage usually is not paid
off by the original owner unless he uses the equity from the sale.  But
beyond the fact that most houses are mortgaged and not truly "owned" by the
person living there, the fact remains that if a US citizen does not pay his
property tax, he soon learns who actually "owns" his house.  US citizens all
rent from the government.  Those with title papers rent directly.  Those
with landlords rent indirectly.  In the US, the American Dream of true home
ownership remains a legal impossiblity).

> In other words we have priced our product out of the reach
> of most people who might buy it when they need it most and can't get
> insurance.
>

This I feel is one of our most important missions - to argue that you need
cryonics most NOW.  Statistically you can stare at a life expectancy table
and assume you will not die until somewhere in your mid 70's on average.  Of
course statistics work well for insurance companies, but as the insured you
must assume you will die tomorrow (or tonight).

"If you can get insurance now, you should be do so now.  Don't play dice
with your life."

I feel this is the only truly ethical approach to take when speaking to
someone considering cryonics.  If we approach the INDIVIDUAL from a GROUP
statistical perspective, that will not help if the individual becomes
uninsurable or dies too soon.  What I find "irrational" in our discussions
is to assume anytime that we already know what the future can hold and then
do not try to prepare for being wrong.

> In my opinion, the great shame is that Alcor would be in BETTER financial
> condition if they priced the suspension at a more reasonable price. There
> is NO reason why the price has to be so high.  At the current prices Alcor
> does one or two suspensions a year.  Alcor would be money ahead to do
> dozens of suspensions a year at $45,000 each.

Perhaps if this is being seriously considered it might be worth while to
consider looking at the level of services offered by CI and consider finding
a middle ground option (price-wise) for ALCOR to offer.  I can't help but
feel that David Pizer is speaking to a market truth.  You can often sell
more Fords than Cadillacs.  The main thing is to be sure they all have
wheels and can do what cars are supposed to do.  When I was an ALCOR member
I was unconvinced from my pathology experiences that it made sense to
approach cryonics from a surgical "clean room" approach, which I understood
was one of the causes for the higher price tag compared to CI.

What I perceived then was a difference in perspective toward how much was
being relied upon for repair in the future.  That perspective has actually
widened recently in my opinion where we have some who deny that they can
believe present day cryonics can EVER work, to the viewpoint I hold that it
is entirely possible that successful reanimation may prove to be MUCH easier
than most of us are willing to now believe.  Of course, no one can prove
their views yet.  That will have to wait for the future.

However, if there are at least alternative services ALCOR could offer at
lower prices, I think that would be helpful to "fill the gap" which is
substantial between CI and ALCOR's prices.  I honestly suspect that there is
something of "sticker shock" for the person who learns of CI's prices
compared to ALCOR's.  Usually when this is learned I am asked "Why the big
difference in price?"

I dislike writing this but this gap in price between the two organizations
can BOTH make CI seem "too good to be true" AND make ALCOR look "too
expensive to be believed".  It is only natural for the new potential member
to wonder how there can be so much disparity in price between people seeking
the same goals.  The price gap seems to me to harm both organizations'
credibility.

I suspect it would help BOTH organizations if the middle ground price-wise
could be filled.  If new discoveries cause CI to offer these options in the
future, then CI will probably have services to move up in price.  If ALCOR
can offer lesser expensive options that would help everyone meet in the
middle.

I don't think charging more is a good idea at all.

>
> With all due respect to Charles, I remember being on the board at the
time,
> and telling members (who really had legitimate complaints) that we would
> consider their complaints by the next board meeting, we needed time to
> think it all though.  But before we had time to act, the matter was taken
> public, instead.  I always felt that *I* was *forced* into a public battle
> BEFORE I was given time to consider the complaints.  I also admit that if
I
> had to do it over, I would have acted much differently.  In retrospect,
the
> matter could have, should have, been handled differently.  As I said in my
> first posting, I hope we can ALL put the seriousness of the problem of
> defeating death ahead of all this and start to work together again.

I was unaware of these inter personal issues.  I applaud any effort to unite
behind the purpose of successful commitment to life on earth.  There are six
billion people on this planet.  Plenty of "customers" for both
organizations.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

George Smith
CI member
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13799