Brian, your point is valid, but you are forgetting that if the proportion of overfunded members and the relative amounts of such overfunding continue into the future as they have been in the past, it is that new overfunding which will easily pay for this limited amount of liability under my proposal (which as I have stated will become less and less of a percentage of the total funding).bwowk wrote:With significant remaining life expectancy, it's still a problem even if they are the same age. Overfunding decreases as costs rise with inflation, while underfunding remains constant under your proposal. The overfunded members eventually become minimally funded members, while the liability of previously underfunded members remains.paulwakfer wrote:bwowk wrote:If we grandfather neuro members to present minimums, we'd have a $5.6 million shortfall to make up.
Which should be able to be made up by the $9.7M overfunded neuros.
I don't see why bequests should be needed when there is already more than sufficient neuro overfunding. I think that possibility of mismatches and consequent "cash squeeze" can be well analyzed by examining the ages of those neuros who are underfunded versus those who are overfunded. If the underfunded group are substantially older than the overfunded group, then I agree that there may be a problem.
Okay, with Kitty's help I have finally seen your point. Unfortunately we have been talking past one another, because my entire concern on this thread is with the PCT under and overfunding. Therefore, I assumed that the overfunding amount of $9.7M was entirely PCT overfunding. However, I think that my point is still valid, because a goodly portion of that $9.7M is surely allocated by member selections to the PCT. So at least that portion can be used as I have indicated and now describe with an example.bwowk wrote:We don't have the flexibility to do that. The disposition of funds above minimum is directed by the individual elections in each member's Cryopreservation Agreement.paulwakfer wrote:Just so your meaning of "upfront costs" is clear (Kitty did not get it until I explained), I am assuming that you mean the sum of costs of CMS plus transport/perfusion/cooldown/human remains disposal - all the immediate out-of-pocket costs incurred by a neurocryopreservation. But then I ask: if the PCT is "fat" from bequests, then why not direct all of the funds of an underfunded case to the upfront costs? - after all, the PCT doesn't have any knowledge of or "care" where the money comes from since it is a big collective pot, unlike "upfront costs".bwowk wrote:This is especially so because bequests are often directed to specific purposes such as PCT that couldn't be used to pay for upfront costs of underfunded cases.
Instead of the (current) distributions from an $80K neuro member being:
$15,000 to the CMS fund pool
$25,000 to the Patient Care Trust
$40,000 to cryoprotection, cool down, and long-term transfer expenses
for a $50k neuro member the distributions would be:
$10,000 to the CMS fund pool (up from the $5K which is currently distributed for that purpose from a current member funded at only $50k)
$0 to the Patient Care Trust (as opposed to the $15K which is currently distributed for that purpose from a current member funded at only $50k)
$40,000 to cryoprotection, cool down, and long-term transfer expenses (up from the $30k which is currently distributed for that purpose from a current member funded at only $50k)
or something like that, because the PCT already has sufficient funding from bequests and the overfunding of some members already cryopreserved. Perhaps the above are not the exact amounts currently distributed (I certainly don't have everything memorized), but the method should be the same.
Brian, if the amount of liability based on my approach is still too high relative to the member-selected overfunding of the PCT, then similarly to my weakening approach (taking everyone as effectively having the neuro funding of the next future minimum, whatever that will be) instead go back one step and take everyone as effectively having funding at the $50K level requiring only funding to be now made up from $50 to $80K, and so on with every increase. This would still upset a lot of members, but much less so, I am convinced, than the very abrupt current board proposal.
It would also be much less upsetting to members (and the public watching Alcor) if the board strongly admits that Alcor was grossly negligent in not enacting these changes many years ago, highly regrets having to do so at this late date and has offered the yearly underfunding fee and the hardship fund as ways to help long-time members.
IMO, the absolute worst thing to do is for Alcor to keep insisting, as Michael R Seidl is determined when he stated "Your suggestion, if adopted, would create the impression that Alcor presently grandfathers its members. It does not", that Alcor has not been grandfathering its members. While it is true that as of the publication (more correctly the future board passage) of the proposal to solve the underfunding problem, Alcor does then not grandfather its members, for almost 40 years up to that official decision the de facto policy has been that Alcor does grandfather its members!