X-Message-Number: 33069
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: Alcor funding minimums / "in good shape"
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:00:39 -0000

The only way this is going to get taken any further is for Dr Stodolsky to 
have face to face discussions with lawyers representing both of the main 
cryonics service providers at their meetings. Otherwise it is always going 
to get shot down by claims it is selling life insurance without proper 
regulatory approval - even if anyone in a position to do so considers it for 
just a moment.

It is no good arguing the point on these lists -- the legal profession 
always have the casting vote on any board of directors, even though they are 
not themselves board members. If a company breaks the law, then the 
directors can face the full force of one the biggest gangs in the world - 
legislatures. Therefore they have to obey their lawyer's advice if they know 
what is good for them. Noble sacrifices wouldn't work either, not for a 
cryonics company. Once the directors were bankrupted and locked up it would 
be disbanded and the patients buried.

Of course a company lawyer should really consider any idea and if as first 
presented it breaks the law, he needs to consider a compromise that remains 
within the law and acheives some of the effect wanted. But this requires a 
lot of effort. This is what a face to face discussion could achieve.

If it is done in writing, or even a recorded conversation, the company 
lawyer runs the risk of being sued for showing people "how to get round the 
law". But there seems to me to be little difference between that and 
reaching a compromise over an idea to remain within the law.

Maybe this is asking too much, but I can not see the idea being implemented 
(or Dr Stodolsky convinced that it is completely illegal) otherwise.

-- 
Sincerely, John de Rivaz:  http://John.deRivaz.com for websites including
Cryonics Europe, Longevity Report, The Venturists, Porthtowan, Alec Harley
Reeves - inventor, Arthur Bowker - potter, de Rivaz genealogy,  Nomad .. and
more

----- Original Message ----- 
Message #33068
Subject: Re: Alcor funding minimums / "in good shape"
From: David Stodolsky <>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:26:26 +0100
References: <>

<del>
Previously, I suggested a 'pay as you go' plan for suspension funding. This 
would have the advantage of being able to raise rates to adjust for 
inflation or new technology, without triggering the disputes mentioned. It 
also would enhance growth, and with a pay as you go plan, that would mean 
many 'new' members paying for the suspension of a much smaller number of 
'old' members. This approach would effectively cut costs, while ensuring 
suspensions would be provided, even under monetary instability.

If we could get back to the growth rates we were seeing up to 2004, it would 
mean that prices could be cut sharply:

http://cryin.secureid.org/stories/storyReader$52
<del> 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=33069