But it really is an apple to oranges comparison, because if you're the person to benefit from it, it might as well be everyone needs it. At worst, it's a reasonably priced luxury. At best, it's a lifesaver.
But let's throw a few cantaloupes into the apples and oranges mix, too. If even a family member of the baby who had cord blood stored needs it, there's still twice the chance the match will assure acceptance over rejection when compared with a match from outside the family. So depending on the number of family members, the odds on your "investment" yielding a benefit can go up dramatically.
There is also the matter of simplicity. Collecting cord blood in case someone might need it one day is quite different from waiting to get bone marrow after finding out there is a need. One of the startling contrasts in comparing cord blood retrieval to bone marrow retrieval is that in cord blood at birth, the retrieval is painless, inexpensive, and involves absolutely no risk. Add to that the increased survivability of stem cell donations to family members and suddenly the critics' objections begin to get a little wispy.
I could name a lot of unnecessary things that cost a whole lot more than a hundred dollars a year, and I suppose we must all take inventory as to what's important in this life. But we will all agree that life itself is important to us, and cord blood storage adds another advantage to surviving the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.