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