X-Message-Number: 22925 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:18:46 -0800 From: James Swayze <> Subject: Reply to Charles, The glass is half full! References: <> >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message #22911 >Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 11:17:27 -0500 (EST) >From: Charles Platt <> >Subject: standby scheme > >James Swayze's well-intentioned proposal is a mixture of an >insurance scheme and a lottery. > Well at least you give me "well intentioned" but only briefly as we'll see below. Unfortunately, Charles, you are wrong on both points here. I blame this on my use of the words "insurance like" in my description of the plan [not scheme]. Firstly, this is not a lottery. In a lottery everyone buys a ticket but only a few can win. This is not the way my plan works but you seem to wish to characterize so. Maybe this has more to do with philosophical differences between us cropping up yet again. In today's cryonet you said, "Getting back to the original thread, all of these factors intensify my skepticism about the idea that people could pay $10 a month each, and the first person who needs a standby wins the jackpot." This is not how I envision this plan working at all. It is not about everyone paying and only the first to die getting the funds. However, you may be right in that it may cost more than a mere $10 per month. I said as much and asked for *discussion* from experts on this. I have had messages from many people wishing to get this going. I invite them all to express their own reasons why they feel this is a good idea and one that can work. Regarding the monthly cost here is what I explained to someone that asked me about the mathematics of my plan. [begin quoted] Question: I'm not familiar with Actuary tables, but to me the maths don't seem to add up, however, I may not be up to speed with the current info on SA. The last I heard was that SA would be charging around $40,000 for a suspension. If this is so, then each participant would need to put in on average $40,000. I believe your idea is for this to work like insurance so that some will put in more, some less depending on how long they live, but the average would still need to be $40,000. At $120 per year the average member would need to pay in for 333 years before being suspended, excluding any interest payments. Are my figures or information wrong or have I got the wrong idea? Answer: I don't think you are particularly wrong except that I see it this way. Not everyone will be deanimating at once. If they did you are right that there's not enough time for everyone to pay the average amount needed. Some consideration will need to be put into say a group of members of similar age all reaching dangerous years some day ahead. Maybe it needs to be $25 a month. In this way, provided everyone that is a member now paid in, the fund could handle the first deanimation in just two months (i.e. $25 x 1000 members x 2months, we get $50,000.00 so there's [$10,000] room to spare and seed [or administration costs] the next standby/suspension amount). If no one deanimated in the next few or several months (as we have seen happen, going for long stretches without any deanimations) it would continue to grow and get even further ahead of the curve. As long as younger always as generations progress new members join there would be people funding the fund that were less likely to need it just yet, except for the odd mishap, and it would continue to stay solvent ahead of the deanimation curve. If with regular Life Insurance/Assurance, even with the insurance companies all investing to beat the band, if all their clients died at once they'd not be able to cover the entire cost. We see all the time localized companies go bankrupt when a natural disaster causes a large all at once loss. Hurricane Andrew bankrupted many homeowner's insurance companies. We would run the same risk, except that we are buffered some by having our members spread over the entire world. [end] Secondly, I've had more time to think about it and no longer see this as an "insurance/assurance like" plan. What we propose is to pay for a service, not hand over money to an individual member upon deanimation. In fact that goes back to the lottery issue in that the individual does not directly profit from, as you call it, "winning the lottery". In fact, they by means of being deanimated are unable legally to accept funds. We are proposing to pay for the providing of a service by SAI or whomever competes with them, to aid the recipient member's cryonics organization. This is perhaps a means to skirt certain regulatory issues that may arise. Must we always be so regulation averse anyway? On the other hand this is a service club, like an auto club. Does triple A (AAA) automobile club get accosted by insurance regulators I wonder? If we also invest the funds to earn interest, and pay for the administration costs that have been mentioned from that interest income, then we are also an investment club. What about all the small groups of grannies in investment clubs, is Uncle Sam beating them over the heads with regulations? This is not an insurance scheme or a lottery, it is a service/investment club. > Since cryonics is coming >under regulatory scrutiny these days, I wonder whether the >scheme would attract unwelcome attention, since insurance and >lotteries are both heavily regulated activities. > >In addition there are specific problems of implementarion. > >1. Alcor members already have 3 days of standby built into >their funding. CI members don't. Alcor members therefore will >be less motivated to participate and will feel that they >should not pay the same amount as CI members, especially >since they have already paid higher annual dues and insurance >premiums for higher cryopreservation minimums. > First of all this is a red herring. we are not proposing to necessarilly be affiliated with either organization. Whatever anyone has paid or not paid is quite irrelevant. Did SA give a discount to the people that they recently helped that were Alcor people because those people had paid to Alcor and not to SA for their three days of suspension? This is proposed as an add-on over and above whatever anyone has paid for the storage of their cryo preserved body. If Alcor wants to give a refund of their 3 days standby to anyone signed up for this that's their business. > >2. You never get 100 percent of any group to participate in >anything. Consequently James's calculation of 1000 members >contributing $10 each per month is quite unrealistic. > > This may be quite true. It certainly doesn't help it to gain momentum by having you panning the idea as being against Libertarian principles by way of being communitarian. Speaking of that, is it really against such principles? See below. >3. There is no provision for the expense of collecting the >money. Even if it is done annually instead of monthly, the >administrative process would be nontrivial. > > How premature of you. As I said, it needs work and input from experts. Thank you for yours but a little less negativity would be appreciated. The $10 per month was just an early estimate. Still, I cannot see it costing $10,000 per month just to administrate the collectection that same amount of money. Also as I said above, it may be entirely possible to invest a large part of it in something very low risk and allow that interest income to offset the admin costs. If I were able to I would volunteer to administrate it but I don't think that is a good idea. Some government agency would likely make a stink about offering my services for free that I could otherwise be paid for or someone might be paid for and surely they would be myopic and not realize I need 140k per year to be free of the government. I would never put that kind of drain on the fund. However, I couldn't just have the idea and not say anything about it for the lack of being able to be fully involved in it. >4. The last few years have seen more than one Alcor standby >per year. Add to this the number of CI cases where a standby >might have been justifiable, and the total is far more than >James's predicted one standby per year. > What "predicted one standby per year"? Where did I say that? >5. Older members in frail health will be much more motivated >to contribute to the plan than younger members in good >health, whose primary risk is accidental death, where no >standby is necessary or possible. > >6. Overall, the scheme is a communitarian attempt to address >an individual problem. I think this is a bad idea in >principle, since it is a way of avoiding individual >responsibility. > There it is, that anti libertarian feel of the plan as Charles sees it. Oh but wait. I recall Charles calling it an "insurance scheme". I also recall that Libertarians advocate, have to me, one's buying of insurance, health and accident and life, so to avoid needing communitarian schemes like welfare and medicare and social security in the event of accident. Now we have it that insurance too is anti libertarian by means of it too being ccommunitarian? Hmmm. Can it be both ways a once? >I suspect this plan seems attractive (to some) because it >suggests you can get something for almost nothing. I can >imagine a person thinking, "I want a standby if necessary, >and I can't afford it, but hey, if *everyone* kicked in $10 a >month, I could get my standby!" Is that what ran through your >mind, James? > I see, because I am poor and must live off of tax paid social security disability, a terrible crime against the prevailing philosophy, and had to accept a marvelous free gift of a suspension or else I'd die without biostasis, you think I can't possibly have an altruist purpose in devising this. In everything I do I'm just greedily seeking my own selfish, self interested aims, right? Sounds familiar again, I'm not allowed self interest but you and all the real libertarians are. Note: I do consider myself partly libertarian and partly other thigns but I don't feel any pure system of any flavor in our current state of humanity will work. In point of fact, getting back to my motivation, yes part of my reasoning is surrounding my inability to afford the cost of SA but that is small in comparison to what prompted the idea and what was on my mind when I did. The following things were swimming around my mind on that day. I had in my hands a list of the locations of all CI members, not names just general locations for where we are all spread around the world. I wondered how everyone could get a decent standby being that some were in isolated areas not near any other members. This is because the discussion on the CI group list that day and for that week was around finding funeral directors and that spread to forming and funding standby teams by region, another idea of mine, at least on that day. I could see that some people would be left out. It would be best if they could have a team flown to them and started scheming, if you will, how that might occur. One possibility was to have a fund that could pay the travel expenses of a volunteer standby team from an established nearby regional team. Such a fund could also pay to equip all the teams. I also had in mind the difficulty some were having in finding cooperating funeral directors and I was reminded of the Arizona funeral directors association regulatory agency person causing problems for Alcor. Also on my mind was the difficulties SA was having and in their own words belief that funeral industry people were acting, perhaps behind the scenes, to get them regulated as being in that industry, something not coducive to their operation. If the funeral industry was seeming to be getting uncooperative I saw problems for all CI members. I personally happen to already have a cooperative funeral director and he is a family friend to boot. But please having what seems to me a "the glass is half empty" outlook to life, Charles, whatever you do don't take my word for it. Here is my original transcript from the CI group post. I'm sure someone can corroborate it as not tampered with. [begin quoted] Regarding setting up a list of standby volunteers I have some suggestions. 1.) I would like to see a joint project of members and CI to set up some sort of training for possible standby volunteers. At the very minimum it should entail a video of a mock standby situation showing the proper ways and timing for applying CPR and cooling and locations for cooling. It should include proper uses of equipment if any is to be involved, such as a thumper. We might not be able to afford or need the involved training that Alcor seems to do but we can teach a lot with a video and duplicate our teaching efforts and time doing so quite economically. Volunteers can also seek CPR training through several venues, some possibly even free. Maybe, ironically, we could find free CPR training through the Salvation Army, YMCA/YWCA or local churches. I bet the Adventists have a free or very cheap class. 2.) As to equipment I'd like to see some volunteer investment in standby equipment such as the thumper mentioned above. Perhaps we can put together kits for regional groups with each having a particularly available perhaps centrally located member for each group that can house the equipment for that region until needed. I have made the suggestion before that a small rubber boat can make a quick and easy to apply tub for ice-bath. It can be rolled up and deployed under a patient, even one of considerable size, without lifting the patient, simply roll the patient onto a side pushing the half-rolled-up raft underneath then rolling patient back down and unrolling the raft. When inflated the tubular walls should well be capable of holding water and ice for ice bath cooling. For drainage partial deflation allows a tubular wall to be pressed down by hand to funnel to buckets. I suggest easily obtainable long sleeve gloves for dishwashing be used for possible body fluid contamination while holding the side down for draining. The rubber boat can also be a sling style patient carrier while fully deflated and may even have hand holds or ropes that serve as such. I now leave the subject of what pre suspension standby kits should contain open to suggestions and debate. A side note: Has anyone ever suggested salt for ice baths to increase cooling? 3.) To help fund these regional standby teams I'd like to suggest a member funded volunteer fund be set up. We could pledge to give a minimum set amount to it each month or yearly. I could afford and suggest a minimum set at $10 per month. Anyone could give more if they so wished. Perhaps a few of the more financially capable could put up, to be paid back to them from the fund, certain initial funds for getting each regional group something expensive such as a thumper. Perhaps a break can be achieved on price if several are bought at a time. After actually doing the math on $10 per month by 419 members I see it comes to $4190.00 per month! I think we could down size that to $5 per month. However, it might by a good idea to keep it at $10 per month until the initial costs of getting everything all regional teams will need is purchased and reserves fully funded. A fat reserve should be a goal for such as travel funds for airline and for lodging. 4.) There is an obvious drawback for setting up regional standby groups/teams. There are people that aren't anywhere near the US or concentrated enough to be near a region that may be set up outside the US. I can see a possible Northern Europe and a Southern Europe or maybe more, Eastern? What about Australia, could someone work on the spread of members there and if a single or more groups is appropriate? Perhaps for those that are far too isolated for forming a group we could have a volunteer traveling team? I figure, possibly wrongly, that a minimum of two people with family support can handle a standby if given the proper equipment. This assumes a great deal of family cooperation and the ability perhaps to stay at the home of the patient to reduce response time if things go critical while standby members are away at lodgings. If enough cooperation is given the two might do 12 hours on 12 hours off with each spelling the other. If this all is a possibility then a two person team could fly to remotely located members on short notice. Here's a thought, if we kept putting nearly $4000.00 a month into a fund it could soon be able to pay for an SA (Suspended Animation, Inc.) team to travel to any member. In fact if the funds were invested and kept pouring in it might be possible to have enough reserve to handle several one after the other deanimations with SA as the primary standby team. It might be possible to keep it funded and growing so as to allow each of us an SA standby. It was my intention in suggesting regional teams and education in order to achieve a standby for each of us that meets or exceeds the level that SA can apparently provide. However, for most of us their cost born alone is way too much. In some cases it exceeds what CI charges for a suspension. It might be a better idea to forego making standby teams at all and simply pay via the fund for SA. Then again there may be occasions that occur where SA cannot respond in time or that a local regional team can baby-sit until SA arrives. I don't know what we will all decide I only know what I want and what I fear. I fear being found dead after several hours of being warm or that even if my death is witnessed my family won't be prepared to do what is best to keep me cool, circulated and oxygenated. They might call 911 and thereby get officialdom involved prematurely possibly interfering with efforts to use CPR on my alleged corpse or not allow application of ice where they may be thinking don't touch until ME signs off or a decision whether or not to autopsy is made by higher officials. I want for my own fear to be allayed for myself and all cryonicists, not just CI's members alone or myself alone. Speaking to my wish for every cryonicist to feel comforted in the knowledge that their pre suspension needs will be met, there is strength in numbers. Would it be wise to invite Alcor and the other cryonics organizations members to join in any endeavors to create regional volunteer standby teams or to join in a general fund to pay for an SA team standby whenever anyone needs it? This is beginning to sound to me like standby expense insurance. This means that somewhere there is an actuary table that can give a good accounting of what type of investment fund and premium cost per individual can handle paying for the standby for everyone given that not all will need it at once. We could use the records of how many have been suspended and when then add some data about average ages of members and likelihood of death statistics to get an idea of how much premiums should cost per month and allow for emergency pile ups of many deanimations at once while still growing the fund. Since it won't be a for profit fund, no real insurance company trying to make a buck and pay operating overhead and taxes, it should be cheaper than what perhaps life insurance of the same amount costs. The analogy is that while accident insurance gambles that not everyone will have an accident for life insurance and in this case standby insurance would be based on everyone needing it at some point. [end quoted] >This of course is precisely the same fantasy that has fueled >many kinds of communitarian schemes, such as Medicare. >Naturally everyone wants to get something out of it (no one >wants to make all those payments for nothing). Thus the >scheme quickly becomes overloaded and ultimately must either >increase the monthly payments or must institute various kinds >of restrictions and caveats in order to stay solvent. > It might be prudent to point out here that comparing the US medicare and social security problems to this is forgetting one very crucial point. The US has problems with future solvency of these programs precisely for the fault of the government, often the most objectivist bent regimes by the way, the neo cons, stealing the funds from these programs for balancing their overweight budgets overweight from defense spending and bloated health plans for congress members and a host of other things. We've now progressed from red herring, a propaganda technique, to another namely guilt by false association and another misinformation by omission of key facts. You are good at propaganda Charles, I'll give you that. > We have >seen precisely this syndrome in HMOs, which are directly >comparable to James's idea. The HMO has to have "gatekeepers" >(this is what they are called) whose job is to turn people >away if their condition is insufficiently serious. >Inevitably, everyone ends up hating the HMO. > >Face it: CRYONICS COSTS MONEY, and good service costs more >money. The field has been subsidized by donations and >bequests, giving the majority of members a discounted rate at >the expense of a minority. > Ah hem, you are forgetting to mention that those in that minority are benefiting from doing as they did in their own self interest in at least two major ways. One, by donating their large fortunes they, in their own self interest, are helping guarantee the survival of their organization. Two, the fact that it helps others is actually also in their own self interest because it helps to increase the membership of their organization and we know that this is beneficial for those donating because a wider base means more dedicated people for volunteer help and more family members involved in making sure their loved ones as well as those along side, the minority, are kept in good care. A rich person instead of leaving their wealth to a cryonics organization, could I suppose pay all their funds to someone that would maintain a private dewer locked in some basement. This would be risky and depend on the perpetuation of that trusted person or persons remaining trustworthy, not having any personal catastrophes that might distract them, and continually passing their duties on to others they deem trustworthy after such time they can no longer do their duty. Instead of this it is much more wise to give their wealth to a cryonics organization which already has a wider and ever widening base. Helping this membership base to grow is in their own self interest so try not to impugn to much those that also benefit from it. > This is not a viable plan for the >future, > Wrong, see above. > and any attempt to provide even better service >without paying its full cost will make the situation >worse. Until cryonicists face the painful fact that they >must pay considerably more money to cover the real costs of >the service they receive (especially in standbys), cryonics >will not be financially viable in the long term. > Ironically, standbys are exactly what we are trying to address. Now perhaps you'd prefer that CI and Alcor add $40,000.00 to their suspension costs and so pay upfront for standby services from SA? So, Charles, why couldn't you be supportive and steer the idea in a workable direction? The glass is always half empty for you isn't it? Nay it's half empty and cracked with an eminent leak! It reminds me of a story. Two little Texas chickadees were flying along looking for breakfast on a cold January morning after a sleet and freezing rain storm the night before. The ground is frozen and there's not a grass seed in sight all locked away by the ice. One, we'll call him James, sees a bunch of cows grazing and recognizes they are scrapping the ice with their hooves exposing the grass. On his suggestion he and the other one, we'll call him Charles, fly down the follow behind the cows to see what's scratched up from beneath. Charles is complaining about how cold he is and shivering terribly. "Why are we out here? This will never work." James says, "Oh come on give it a try, see there's a seed right there." A half an hour later they've both got packed craws and Charles complains again about the cold and his stretched and aching craw but James reminds him of the chicks his mate will be laying come spring and his need to provide some food today. Just then a cow plops a big steaming hunk of cow pie right on the top of them. "Oh, great!" exclaims Charles. "This is horrible, it stinks, it's wet, I'll never get this out of my feathers, you just had to drag me down here to follow the these damn cows!" James says, "Would you relax, a minute ago you were complaining of freezing to death. Now we're nice and cozy warm in a steaming hot cow pie!" You know, Charles, I wouldn't trade my life for yours if it meant having to be so negative all the time. Mine has helped me learn to find the bright side of things because so much of it is so terribly dark. Please try to see the bright side here and help something good happen for a lot of people that happen to care a lot about you. James -- Member: Cryonics Institute of Michigan http://www.cryonics.org The Immortalist Society http://www.cryonics.org/info.html The Society for Venturism http://www.venturist.org Immortality Institute http://www.imminst.org MY WEBSITE: http://www.davidpascal.com/swayze/ Signature Memetic Virus--The worst enemy of those who now or will need medical care is the uninformed politician or moral fanatic who proscribe what doctors are allowed to prescribe and research, with the consent of their patients. Those who understand this are strongly encouraged to modify this to fit their personality, and add this to their signature file, and organize to recover our freedom from Big Brother. For those who wait until they are sick, it will be too late. Those who suffer from diseases which might have been cured by advanced medical research or schedule 1 drugs banned by Big Brother, have the right to hold accountable those who sat on their hands or worse, deferred their responsibility for personal and humanity's survival to unseen mystical agents, while they remained ill and dying. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=22925