X-Message-Number: 3529 From: Brian Wowk <> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 94 17:55:41 CST Subject: SCI.CRYONICS.Money Peter Merel < writes: >Bridge Steve <> writes: >> For example, we don't know which organizations will be in existence >>30 years from now, much less which will have done the best job at >>suspending and caring for patients. > >Has Alcor made arrangements for its patients to be taken over by another >organisation in the event that it becomes insolvent? If not, why not? It >seems to me that reciprocal arrangements among the major organisations >would be highly desirable, and that the added risk (one insolvency >leads to an overload of the facillities of the others, who then go over >like dominoes ...) could be insured against. > There are several problems with reciprocal coverage arrangements among cryonics organizations today. The most important ones are money, money, and money. If a cryonics organization fails due to collapse of its administrative infrastructure, it would in principle be possible for another organization to take over care of the patients *provided that the patients' funds were still intact*. If patient care funds are lost during the organization's collapse, continued care is much more problematic. The question then becomes, who will pay for continued care? As I see it, there are two potential sources of funds: 1) Donations from the cryonics community (possibly including living relatives of the patient). 2) Patients already in the care of the rescuing organization. I personally prefer option one. Option two is ethically questionable, and cannot be implemented by organizations that account for patient funds individually. Both options will fail if large numbers of patients are involved. >> Most people do not want to switch back and forth from organization to >>organization every couple of years as one gains a bit over another. Most >>people don't even like to change long distance companies each year, and >>that can be done very simply. The paperwork for signing up with a >>cryonics company can be fearsomely complex, and you might change your mind >>again in a couple of years, if things don't work out like you want. So we >>make our best guess and hope it was right. > >Perhaps a level of indirection would help; the suspendee might leave his >funds with an insurer, and the insurer could then select and pay a carer >organisation. I'm sure that the large insurance companies would be eager >to hold on to the cash in exchange for only a little added responsibility. >That way, if the carer became insolvent, the insurer could arrange for >another to intervene. The advantage here is that most large insurers seem >very stable and very financially competent. This is precisely the thinking that went into the formation of the CryoCare Foundation last year. The createst risk to a cryonics patient is not the failure of their organization, it is *the depeletion of their funds*. These are not the same things. At CryoCare we believe that funds for long-term patient care should be segregated from custodial organizations as much as possible. For this purpose we created not one, but *two* levels of indirection (speaking in computer terms). IPCF ------> CryoCare Foundation ------> Multiple Storage Providers On the first level, patients are protected against the failure of a physical storage provider because CryoCare can contract with another storage facility for continued care of the patient. On the second level, patients are protected against the failure of CryoCare itself because CryoCare does not hold long-term care funds, the Independent Patient Care Foundation (IPCF) does. Even a third level of indirection is possible. CryoCare members can, at their discretion, take any funding above the CryoCare minimums and place it in an individual trust for their long term care with trustees of their own choosing. The bottom line is that your long term care will only be as safe as your money is. It is certainly worth the time to investigate this issue closely as you make cryopreservation arrangements. ---- Brian Wowk Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=3529