X-Message-Number: 1929
Date: 10 Mar 93 01:04:29 EST
From: Paul Wakfer <>
Subject: CRYONICS Re: Ever Rising Curve ...

From: Mike Darwin
To: All
Re: Ever Rising Curve...
Date: 8 March, 1993

     Steve Bridge (privately), and Michael Riskin (publically) have taken 
me to task over my recent posting "The Ever Rising Curve of Expectations."  
Let me apologize at the outset for what can only be described (at best) as 
a hamfisted delivery of what was intended as constructive criticism.  Like 
Michael, perhaps I got too warped-up in venting frustration rather that 
chosing ways of expressing myself that would be perceived as less 
inflamatory.  One of the really serious hazards of written communications 
in general is that the tone and associated moderating body-language 
doesn't come through.

     I will try to address the questions asked of me as carefully and as 
calmly as possible...and also in a spirit of good will.

     When I said that members were "getting raped" what I should have said 
was that requests for increased financial support, while probably 
necessary in the short run to help Alcor continue to meet obligations it 
already has, should not be construed as the answer to the problem in the 
long run.  And that members should be aware that the current system has 
basic deep inequities in it which need to be addressed.  I am painfully 
aware that those individuals wrestling with the problems today have their 
hands full.

     As to the issue of self-insurance there were several questions and 
I'll try to clarify my opinion on them:

     1) Thomas asks about the amount of money required for self-insurance 
and where Alcor would get it.  I was referring here to the fact that large 
amounts of the Jones legacy have been spent over the past several years.  
Including the "endowment" I would estimate that roughly $1,000,000 has 
been spent electively.  By this I mean that if Dick hadn't left Alcor the 
money it wouldn't have been there to be spent.  Aside from money spent on 
defensive litigation (which I agree HAD to be spent) there still remains a 
large sum of money which was spent.  It can be argued that this money was 
not wasted or misspent, however it can also be agrued that had we set 
aside the money for a self-insurance approach and foregone many of the 
"worthwhile" things it was spent on, we would not be having the problems 
we are having now.

     2) When Alcor still had about $500,000 "liquid" (including the 
endowment) two members of considerable wealth expressed interest in 
starting a self-insurance or independent insurance set-up.  This was not 
pursued.  

     3) In a private communication to me Steve Bridge suggests that I have 
long argued against self-insurance.  This is not the case.  While I did 
have concerns about it in the early 1980's when it was first discussed, I 
resolved those concerns long ago.  I truly believe that had Alcor made 
some short-term sacrficies, husbanded its resources, and adopted this 
strategy we would now be self-insured.

     4)  At the time this proposal was being seriously put-forth the 
California requirements for cash reserves for insurance were, I was told 
by Carlos, about $1,000,000.

     5) My frustration at Alcor's failure to address a fee-for-service 
remote standby program knows no bounds.  This is a major source of revenue 
which has remained untapped.  It is also a source of revenue which will 
give people something which will likely be perceived as a well-defined 
EXTRA for their money rather than higher fees for a perceived lower level 
of service.  Right now, no member can count on remote standby services 
because no member (to my knowledge) has paid for them.  This is what I 
meant when I said that Alcor's changing position vis a vis being a 
"typical business" is not being well handled.  There is a service which is 
ESSENTIAL to good suspension and which many people perceive they are going 
to get, which THEY ARE NOT BEING CHARGED FOR AND WHICH THEY HAVE NO 
ASSURANCE OF RECEIVING.  This is not good and does not bode well for the 
future.  This was the point, among others that I was trying to make.

     6) Thomas asks about the research staff here and how much they are 
paid, and how willing they are to work on suspension cases.  Our 
respiratory therapists are willing to do suspensions if they are available 
(one is available almost all the time, the other works part time).  The 
man who I spoke of, is willing to come on board full time if I can match 
his current pay and benefit package.  That probably amounts to about $35K 
a year, ar about twice what we are currently paying him.  Sandra Russell 
who is also undergoing ICU and perfusion training (BSc in Biochemistry 
from UC San Diego) will do cases any time (i.e., will drop everything) and 
will be paid on a case by case basis.

     Our perfusionist is unable to do cryonics cases because of regular 
working hours and on-call committments at his hospital job.  However, we 
are training in house in perfusion and will likely have skilled people 
within 6 months to a year.  Also, I now have contacts with several free 
lancers who I hope to be able to train to go into the field and do the TBW 
work.  Cost for these people would be about $1,200 per day.

     We pay our scrub nurse $100 per day of work.  Skilled scrub nurses 
are available on a pay per day basis and can be gotten to do cryonics 
cases.  Since they are more "common" than perfusionists, I am solving this 
problem by trying to build a pool of them who can be called on in an 
emergency.  I anticipate I will have to pay about $400 to $600 per 
cryonics case to get a good scrub nurse.

     7) I was not trying to toot my horn with this posting, merely trying 
to point out that if you want competent people you need to FIND them, not 
make-do.  It is pointless for me to argue about whether or not I will 
succeed in doing this.  I will simply succeed or fail and that will answer 
the question.  I would also point out that if you want to complain about 
socialism and injustice and you want to switch to a pay for value given 
method of operation then you need to address the deeper inequalities that 
exist.  Berating members for suckling at the teat of socialism is fine, 
but be sure to offer them a FAIR structure of dues which does not have 
them subsidizing others.  That is what I was trying to say.

     8) Again my apologies.  I am now an outsider, and that makes it even 
more necessary for my comments to be careful and restrained.

     9) To Michael Riskin regarding fiancial improprieties: I stand by 
what I say.  Taking money out of the Patient Care Fund outside the 
specifications of contract and stated policy is improper.  I do not call 
this a small matter and I do not really care what Price-Waterhouse, or for 
that matter what Price-Pfister thinks.  What I care about is whether 
promises to members were violated.  I maintain that they were.

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1929