X-Message-Number: 13875
From: 
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 12:22:26 -0700
Subject: Re: CryoNet #13850 - #13856

References: <> <> 
<>

 wrote:


IGNORE MY EARLIER MESSAGE...SORRY. I FAILED TO CHECK YESTERDAYS CRYONET.
> 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hello CryoNet Administrator...
> 
> Did you not get this psoting yesterday? I did not see it amomg todays
> cryonet posts.
> 
> Thanx,
> 
> Michael Riskin
> >
> > 6.7.00
> >
> > From: Michael Riskin ( Alcor director, but not speaking as an official
> > represntative in this posting).
> > Re: Dave Pizer's comments about Alcor
> >
> > Dave Pizer said:
> >
> > > " All Alcor has to do is lower its current
> > > prices for what they presently deliver and the added volume and more
> > > reasonable public appearances will make things better for Alcor
> > > financially and in membership growth and other important areas...."
> >
> > I disagree with the notion that a lower price, on its own, will
> > accomplish everything that Dave thinks it will. He is analyzing this as
> > if it would fit into any one of the many standard price/supply/demand
> > curves.
> >
> > The real issue here is the tiny demand for services no matter what the
> > cost. The great majority of people I talk to about cryonics do not bring
> > up cost as an important issue. There are many people we all know of who
> > wont even take it as a gift. It is likely, if the costs were brought
> > down to a "whimsy factor" of say $500, we would get a great deal of
> > impulse buyers from people who like to have stars names after them  but
> > that is not what this is all about.
> >
> > Cryonics simply put, has very little perceived value in the public eye,
> > less than a large screen color TV I believe, and certainly less than a
> > luxury automobile. The other thing is that funding through life
> > insurance is already at an easily affordable cost to most people and
> > less than most of the " amusements" that the typical consumer purchases.
> >
> > When we can prove beyond the apparant ( to cryonicists) sensibility of
> > doing this, that it works, then the demand will far outstrip the supply
> > at almost any price.
> >
> > That all being the case, it makes no sense to reduce the price below
> > current levels. What is involved for all current and potential patients
> > welfare is far more than the expense of grab, perfuse, freeze, and
> > store. We need excess funding to cover the contingency costs of new
> > technologies, legal challenges, reanimation, and catastrophic events. If
> > the only concern was covering freeze and store costs at current expenses
> > levels plus a small operating profit, then we would be saying that it it
> > is acceptable under extreme adverse circumstances to give up patients,
> > like a mainstream business accepts the notion of bankruptcy as an
> > option. That is not acceptable to Alcor.
> >
> > > anything else.
> > >
> > > My claims are:
> > >

> > > 1.      The present prices do not have to be so high for Alcor to come 
out. The

> > > prices were figured using liberal figures and then doubled because ....  I
> > > don't know why they doubled the figures.  My guess is that they thought
> > > more (money) is better. But some times more money prices your product of
> > > service out of reach from what would be your consumers.  Especially the
> > > cash sale cases of which the future will be mostly made up of.  So my
> > > conclusion is that the present high prices are not helping Alcor as the
> > > board thought they would when the board set the prices so darn high.  It
> > > isn't working.  Alcor is still very tight on finances.  Membership growth
> > > is very slow.  Alcor misses most of the suspensions that are being done.
> > > Alcor is falling behind.  None of us Alcorians want to see that continue.
> >
> > Alcor is not falling behind in any of the areas in which progress is
> > legitimately measured. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. Alcors
> > technical capability, already arguably the best at this time, continues
> > its' rapid growth.
> >

> > > 2.      The public appearance of a more reasonable priced suspension would
make
> > > Alcor not look like such an elitist organization.  (Another huge increase
> > > in public appearance would be to offer a brain suspension rather than the
> > > whole head).
> >
> > Brain only suspensions have their own technical and cost complications
> > that far outweigh any savings from long term storage of a smaller mass
> > at this time.
> > >

> > > 3.      The added volume of doing a lot more suspensions at a reasonable 
price
> > > would end up making Alcor more money than just doing one or two a year at
> > > the higher prices.  Too high of prices are costing Alcor money.
> >
> > Perhaps in the short run. The short run is not what Alcor is about.
> > >

> > > 4.      Doing more suspensions would mean that Alcor would get better at 
doing
> > > them.
> >
> > That is true.
> > >

> > > 5.      Doing more suspensions would mean that Alcor would get more 
members.

> > > Relatives of patients tend to join up.  They make some of the best 
members,
> > > most loyal and tend to donate additional funds and labor.
> >
> > Also true.
> > >

> > > 6.      A more reasonable priced suspension would mean that more of our 
fellow
> > > humans could have the benefit of cryonics.
> > >

> > > Alcor is set up for memembers.  That is not where the cryonics business is
> > > going.
> > >
> > > I believe that most of the prospective suspensions in the future will be
> > > people who are not signed up a long time in advance; What are commonly

> > > called "last minute" cases.  These are people who did not sign up years 
ago
> > > and have found themselves in a terminal condition.  These are people who
> > > did not plan ahead.  These are people who will not be able to get life
> > > insurance. They will have to write a check if they are to get suspended.
> > > When you have to write a check all at once, rather than make insurance
> > > payments, the price is even more critical in your decision.
> >
> > That is the cost of shortsightedness. Alcor and its' patients and its
> > long term members cannot bear that cost.
> > >
> > > One of the problems with this is that last minute cases have always been
> > > considered the ones with the most potential liability or be harder to do.

> > > This may or may not be true.  I remember BIG trouble from relatives in the

> > > Dick Jones case.  He was not a last minute case.  In that case, Alcor lost

> > > over a million dollars to the relatives (not of Alcor's previous money, 
but
> > > money of Dick's that might have gone to Alcor except for litigation with
> > > the relatives).
> > >

> > > On the other side, Alcor had a patient's sister (a last minute case) sue 
to

> > > have her sister unfrozen.  The monetary cost (in the sister case) to Alcor
> > > was a lot less than the Dick Jones case.  My point here is that there is
> > > potential risk in *all* cases.  But if the future volume of cryonics is

> > > going to be mostly last minute cases, (people who were not signed up for a
> > > long time ahead), than Alcor should be learning how to deal with these
> > > cases so they can be comfortable in accepting them and have the proper
> > > terms and conditions set up in advance so they can take them.
> >
> > Last minute cases can often be the very best and most acceptable. Again,
> > the primary issue to consider is whether or not these cases will harm
> > the patients or signed up members. in fact, there is an argument to be
> > made that procrastination should reasonably carry a higher price for
> > service and therefore induce early signups.
> > >

> > > I hope the Alcor Board will consider the items I have raised and also Jeff

> > > Davis' suggestions along with all other suggestions on how to make 
cryonics
> > > more successful.
> > >
> > > I hope others will submit their suggestions on either side of this
> > > important issue so we can leave no block of ice unturned.
> > >
> > > Dave  Pizer
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13875