UNILATERAL PALM

UNILATERAL PALM

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

December 21st, 2010, 3:35 pm #1

It occurred to me that the board will reject any semblance of PALM on Jan 7... so I've thought about a unilateral PALM... to MAKE it work, regardless of what the board thinks.

You can respond to this entry without logging in but you won't see it unless or until I approve it.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

December 23rd, 2010, 8:56 pm #2

UniPALM is a fly by the seat of my pants plan to provide money to Alcor at the last minute... to preserve me if they can. It'll be done unilaterally. I can't afford to remain signed up with the proper amount of insurance on the end date of my life expectency... either through Alcor or the CI/sa situation. Cryonics is out of my league. As I get older, my situation becomes harder, not easier... and can't see myself sacrificing my current needs in favor of a crack at immortality. If my finances change, I'll be the first back on board.


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

December 23rd, 2010, 9:08 pm #3

It occurred to me that the board will reject any semblance of PALM on Jan 7... so I've thought about a unilateral PALM... to MAKE it work, regardless of what the board thinks.

You can respond to this entry without logging in but you won't see it unless or until I approve it.
....with straight freeze if thats all they can do with 50K around the year 2057 AD... if that... and that would be a neuro straight freeze with no washout, no M22-- nothing-- this is my latest plan.

I would only keep up my current policy payments... take possession of my policy back... mabye even keep it to borrow against if I ever had to do that...

...or cash it in someday...

This is my cryonics plan for 2011 where cryonics is going to COST ME LESS... than it has in the past because I'm downsizing all my expenses to accomodate what needs to be done... to live.

I never planned on it being this way... but that's how it's going to have to go. Even a straight CI plan.. without an SA option might be considered... in the future.


Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

December 23rd, 2010, 10:58 pm #4

It occurred to me that the board will reject any semblance of PALM on Jan 7... so I've thought about a unilateral PALM... to MAKE it work, regardless of what the board thinks.

You can respond to this entry without logging in but you won't see it unless or until I approve it.
If I give my life ins. policy to CI, I'll keep the same nominal amount... they require $10 /mo membership.. .bringing a monthly expense of $54 total for immortality through cryonics. I wouldn't be near their lab and there would be no SA contract to do standby. It's probably safer to leave the 50K with Alcor if they'll keep the policy on hand and just do their best when the day comes. Alcor requires a $25 payment to return the life insurance policy... but I don't think I'll pay that... unless they unilaterally return my policy ownership and send the $25 fee to a collection agency. I'd rather Alcor hand onto the policy for immediate use in my low-quality rescue.. that's what pALM is all about. We'll see what they come up with Jan. 7.
Quote
Like
Share

Rick
Rick

December 26th, 2010, 10:18 pm #5

....with straight freeze if thats all they can do with 50K around the year 2057 AD... if that... and that would be a neuro straight freeze with no washout, no M22-- nothing-- this is my latest plan.

I would only keep up my current policy payments... take possession of my policy back... mabye even keep it to borrow against if I ever had to do that...

...or cash it in someday...

This is my cryonics plan for 2011 where cryonics is going to COST ME LESS... than it has in the past because I'm downsizing all my expenses to accomodate what needs to be done... to live.

I never planned on it being this way... but that's how it's going to have to go. Even a straight CI plan.. without an SA option might be considered... in the future.

This decision to reposess my policy might make the board meeting agenda item moot. Alcor won't have to hand onto my policy.

As for the amount... we can see in Alcor's own articles that the policy for providing for inflation and tech increases has been inconsistent (insane?)...

quote
I should also note that in 1982, when the current minimums were set, a generous allowance was made for anticipated increases in the cost of perfusion and cooling to liquid nitrogen temperature. Such increases were anticipated to be in the areas of labor, inflation, and technological upgrades. Providing such a "safety factor" has proved very wise, allowing us to do as well as we have. The new suspension funding minimums proposed above do not reflect such an allowance for future increases in the cost of perfusion and cooling. It seems likely that labor costs will continue to increase disproportionately and that inflation also will continue to be a significant cause of cost increase. Thus, it would be prudent to consider providing for future cost increases when examining a potential increase in suspension funding minimums.
unquote

http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/CostOfCryonics.html
Quote
Share