X-Message-Number: 15525 From: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:11:03 EST Subject: cryonics insurance payoffs In a message dated 01/25/2001 5:02:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, writes: << Message #15443 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:58:53 -0500 From: <> Subject: which insurance companies have paid and which haven't? Dan Hitt writes: I understand that it's typical to fund one's suspension with proceeds from an insurance policy. I also understand that there has been at least one case when an insurance company refused payment because the insured had misled it about his HIV status. It would be useful, i think, for each cryonics organization to have a list somewhere specifying which insurance companies have paid (and for how many suspensions), which have denied payment (and perhaps for general interest how many suspensions were not paid for by insurance). So, for example, if a given organization had suspended 50 patients, it would provide a list of 50 or fewer insurance companies which paid for it, as well as a list, hopefully short, of companies which had refused. Note that even if an insurance company is justified in denying payment because of non-disclosure of HIV status or some other cause, it would still be useful to know the identity of that company. (For example, one would know that they don't test for HIV.) Would there be any obstacles to doing this (aside from the aggravation and staff time)? [How much staff time would this kind of project take? This is not a rhetorical question.] dan >> Hello Dan Hitt and other fellow cryonet readers: Rudi Hoffman writing from Daytona, FL re: this important question. Life insurance proceeds are actually by far the most secure of funding mechanisms for cryonics and other cash requirements at "death". This is why both Alcor and CI typically prefer life insurance funding as opposed to money or property supposedly "set aside" for the purpose of funding cryonic suspension. It is also one of the reasons why individuals who have sizable personal or corporate wealth still choose to use the leverage and immediate estate that only life insurance will provide. (I *know* John De Rivaz will chime in that we should be putting our 80 dollars per month, for instance, into a technology mutual fund instead. John, I like most of your posts.. but the mathematics regarding insurance funding are pretty straightforward. *If * you can qualify for the coverage health wise and are under age 70, the lost interest on setting aside $120,000 will in most cases PAY the premiums on the insurance policy. AND, your family still can keep the $120,000 of your estate, because the $120,000 from the life insurance policy is paying for your funding. Let me ask a simple question. Do you think the possibility of some of your heirs contesting a will or launching a legal attack on your spending $120,000 (or even $35,000) on cryonic suspension is a real one? If the money or assets they see as "theirs" is going to a cryonics organization, the perception is that your funding is coming at the expense of a diminished estate for them. On the other hand, life insurance policies create this huge lump sum, which BY LAW goes DIRECTLY to the named beneficiary. No probate, no delay, no danger from creditors, no contested wills. It is simply a cleaner, simpler, less costly way to fund your suspension. Dan and others, all the life insurance companies I use are extremely well funded. They DO test for AIDS. They test for nicotine usage. They get blood and urine, along with doctor records, to help in their underwriting decision. Because they know that once they make a decision to insure you, they ARE on the hook for the face amount of the policy. They pay their claims. In some cases, they have been around for more than 100 years paying their legitimate claims. (State Life was founded in 1895). Hope this sheds some light on the issues Dan Hitt has raised. I thank Dan for bringing up the all important question of cryonics funding. Sincerely Yours, Rudi Hoffman CFP Leading writer of Cryonics Life Insurance Policies in the World Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15525