X-Message-Number: 13795
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:55:17 -0500
From: david pizer <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #13780 - #13787

Very brief replies.  

>Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 06:31:08 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Charles Platt <>
>Subject: Cryo Future

>Price: I find it hard to believe that this is a major factor compared with
>all the others, since almost everyone pays via life insurance, and the
>premium for a $50,000 policy is not THAT different from the premium for a
>$150,000 policy. Also, the cost of whole-body preservation at CI is not
>that different from the cost of neuropreservation elsewhere; and many
>people do opt for neuro.

I have been in several business for over 40 years.  I will state that price
is often the single most important reason for success or failure of a
business.

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.  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.   

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.  

In addition, each time Alcor did a "last minute" suspension there is a
higher chance of getting additional members from the relatives of the
patient.  More suspensions means more members.  More members means more money.

More suspension means the people doing them get better at doing them.  

snip

>Leadership: This is a very personal issue, and I find Dave's comments a
>bit unfair. Dave seems to forget the intransigence of past leadership at
>Alcor. The self-electing board of nine directors, none of whom showed much
>interest in very persistent complaints from activists who had been members
>for many years, was a major cause of the decision to split and start
>another organization (the last thing that any of us wanted to do).

I agree with Charles that the Alcor membership should have a better way to
influence the board more than it does.  However, the argument against
changing the way the board is elected has always been that if we make any
second major change in how we do business (we already made one - I don't
remember what it was) then we will have to have our 501C-3 re-examinded and
the board has never been willing to do this because of the risks involved.

One way this could be rectified, without a major formal change, would be
for members to vote for directors and then the directors promise to vote
the way the membership voted.  Sort of like the electoral college?  

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.  

snip

Dave

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=13795