X-Message-Number: 27142
From: 
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:54:43 EDT
Subject: Re: Confirming Ettinger's observations on life insurance

In a message dated 9/27/2005 5:00:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
 writes:



Message #27134
From: 
Date: Mon, 26 Sep  2005 10:26:11 EDT
Subject: life insurance

Kennita Watson worries  that life insurance companies may refuse to pay off  
on cryonics  cases, because they might be revived.

Can't happen. They pay off on a  death certificate, and our patients have  
death certificates. And the  insurance companies feel no pain--the actuarial  
statistics are  unchanged.

Moreover, the life insurance companies would benefit from  more cryonicists.  
Typically, a cryonicist buys EXTRA insurance for  himself, beyond what he has 
for  his family.

We have plenty of  worries, but this is not one of them.

Robert  Ettinger




(Rudi Writing)
 
Yes, Professor Ettinger is correct in all of above.
 
I spend a good portion of my time trying to explain cryonics to insurance  

company executives.  (As a whole, ultra conservative folks who have not  gotten
to the top of their profession by being noted for their "totally bizarre  and 
outside the box thinking...LOL)
 
It turns out the cryonics market is a GREAT market for the insurance  

companies, because our people are self selected for intelligence, education, and
self care.
 
With some notable exceptions and serious flakes...you know who you  are...
 
The block of business is also HUGELY persistent.  Persistency is a  term of 
art in the insurance world relating to the number of people who maintain  and 
keep their policies year after year.  Clients who keep their policies,  don't 
cause hassles, and don't "die" for a long time are a GOOD thing for the  
companies.

(For years the persistency on my cryonics block of business  was 100%, and 
even after 11 years it is still better than 93%...well above  industry 
norms...virtually unheard of, in fact.)
 
The concern about a "reversal" of a death benefit due to resuscitation of  
our "patients" is a non-issue.  
 
As far as the inscos, and most of the (less well educated) world is  

concerned, a "death certificate" is a permanent and final statement of  
condition.  
 
Let's hope...and work hard...to make sure they are not correct in this.  :)

For Centuries,
 
Rudi Hoffman


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=27142