X-Message-Number: 15532 From: "John de Rivaz" <> References: <> Subject: Re: nics insurance payoffs Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:58:40 -0000 > Message #15525 > From: > Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:11:03 EST > Subject: cryonics insurance payoffs (del) > John, I like most of your posts.. Thanks for that, but I am unable to follow your mathematics without a figure ... > 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. At what rate of "interest" do you base your calculations? Do you take into consideration compounding of the interest into the investment? > 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? You also need to ask: "Is the risk of your cryonics provider deciding that your policy is unsuitable (for perfectly sound and valid reasons) at some time in the future a real one?" I don't suggest that this is a reason to eschew life insurance, only that nothing is perfectly safe. The world if full of evil people, I agree, and if they can join a group, gang, or club, or hire other evil people to help them to indulge in their evil and in their plunder they get bolder. These that encourage these evil people for the benefit of their own personal gain and aggrandisement try and make the public beleive that legacies are something they should get by "right". They are not, of course, they are a distribution of a surplus from someone's life. If they were not a "surplus", then that person would have given them away earlier. I actually mentioned this idea to a senior lawyer not so long ago and he thought about it for a moment and admitted that this is perfectly logical - he only wished the majority of his clients felt the same way! (del) > 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. Why is it then that this apparent loophole in the legal system, that otherwise allows evil people to rape estates, exists? The life insurance industry and the legal profession help each other co-exist because of it. (del) > (State Life was founded in 1895). Equitable Life in the UK was very well thought of for many years. Try doing a search for "Equitable Life" on http://www.bbc.co.uk Ultimately people have to chose savings and investments they are comfortable with. There are evil systems around who will try and force the public to chose methods which earn these systems the most money. Not Mr Hoffman I hasten to add - he is just stating the facts that result from these evil people's actions. Very similar points have been raised in the past in Longevity Report. http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt/lr77.htm#Risks%20and%20Life%20Insuranc e The leaders of the life insurance industry are richer than Bill Gates ever could hope to be. The axis they spin between their companies and lawyers who rape estates sucks this wealth into the coffers at both ends. The electorate could solve this issue by demanding legislation that ratifies people's freedom to leave their estates and instructions for the disposition of their "remains" by a properly binding will and testament, not some expensive sham document that is just someone's opinion and which is open to debate in the courts after the death. Funding cryopreservation by investments can be strengthened by making a proportional pre payment every year once the investment portfolio has built up substantially. I would dearly love to see some form of group of cryonicists who could give people who contest cryonics wills and other arrangements a lot of sleepless nights, but I feel that such action could be damaging to the movement. Retrospective action may be possible though, if in fact the first reanimations occur within the natural lifespans of officials now living. But ultimately - investments are a personal matte. I would advise everyone to read all the ideas and chose what you want. Make your money work furiously for you, possibly risking attack from the descendants of the hired gunslingers of the wild west, or have it growing slowly in an artificial safe haven whilst you work furiously to pile in more to keep up with the latest opportunities in cryopreservation. You may like to take the bet with the life companies where you "win" if you die early. If this happens, then life insurance wins handsomely over investment. Theoretically, if you were to be killed after making only one premium payment, you'd get the full payout. If you are happy with this wager, then take it. [The wild west analogy also suggests the following: Who made more money? Those that risked the gunslingers in the frontiers and built homesteads or those that stayed in the eastern cities and worked as clerks or labourers.] *Neither* is "right" for everyone. My prose is undoubtedly emotional - you can write emotional prose to suggest the point the other way round. But the important point is to be comfortable with what you have chosen. -- Sincerely, John de Rivaz my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors' report, an autobio and various other projects: http://www.geocities.com/longevityrpt http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy? Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15532