It looks like these prized possessions will be auctioned off by Debra in November. It appears from this article that it is because of medical hardship.
Known as one of Hollywood's most magnetic stars of the era, actress and model Sharon Tate's life and style embodied the very essence of the decade now known as the swinging 60's. Tate was amongst the celebrities that influenced the sights and sounds of that era's culture, joining the likes of Jean Shrimpton and Twiggy.
Highlights include a custom made chocolate slubbed silk dress attributed as being made by William Travilla and worn by Sharon Tate while being interviewed on the 1968 documentary The New Cinema (estimate: $5000-$7000); a black floral lace Christian Dior mini dress worn by Tate to the London premiere of Roman Polanski's 1966 film Cul-de-Sac (estimate: $15,000-$30,000); Tate's chocolate sheer silk Alba gown worn at the 1968 Golden Globe Awards with Polanski (estimate: $4,000-$6,000); the ivory silk moiré mini wedding dress worn at her London Chelsea Registry wedding to Roman Polanski in 1968 (estimate: $25,000-$50,000); Tate's green knit mini dress designed by Betsey Johnson for Paraphernalia worn at the Paris 1967 premiere of The Fearless Vampire Killer (estimate: $1,000-$2,000); Tate's chocolate mink swing coat designed by "Fuhrman's Beverly Hills" with asymmetrical collar and fur puffs for buttons (estimate: $20,000-$40,000); Tate's makeup including Revlon black eyeliner in black and in white and a Maybelline eyebrow pencil (estimate: $300-$500); her 1957 copy of "The Paradox of Acting" by Dennis Diderot with "Masks or Faces" by William Archer inscribed "Sharon Tate" in Tate's hand (estimate: $800-$1,200); a set of blue floral canvas and leather carry-on luggage monogrammed "ST" in which Tate and Roman Polanski were shown photographed with while returning from their honeymoon in 1968 (estimate: $1,000-$2,000); a two toned jersey mini dress worn by Tate while attending the Cannes Film Festival with Roman Polanski in 1968 (estimate: $5,000-$7,000) and more.
Maybe one of you out there has a better memory than I. Didn't someone "prove" at some point that the dress shown in the Inside Edition video is actually not Sharon's wedding dress? I remember something about it, but I can't figure out where I heard that. Here's Sharon wearing the dress:
What's missing from this dress is the blue strips around the cuffs and neckline. Anybody?
This is very sad on a number of levels.
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction was 'profit from a crime' how dare you!
My second thought was 'with truly universal health care this would be unnecessary'. Yes, I mean social**** medicine.
My third feeling was 'can you imagine the feeling of loss having kept those things all these years'.Forget what you feel about her.
That is when I registered. I'm going to buy something and give it back.
The same thing came to my mind, bidding on something and if I won (which is unlikely), I'd give it back to Deborah.
ReplyDeleteI just can't imagine...
holding onto your sister's things for so long, and the sadness, feeling of loss (again) & possibly regret, she would feel on the actual day of the sale.
I'll pray for better health for Deborah. My heart is saddened for her.
If you read this Deborah, God bless & be with you.
♡
I love that photo of her in the yellow dress. She's giving the finger on top of being ineluctably beautiful. I hope Deborah can get some good $ and a little relief and closure.
ReplyDeleteAnd she might want to start picketing MK Ultra
I can't wait for the Col to get a hold of this thread. That's my entertainment sorted for this evening! Lol
ReplyDeleteYes, with truly socialized medic8ne, she would have been euthanized long ago.
ReplyDeleteThe article seems to indicate that Debra's insurance requires her to use specific providers and she wants someone not on the list so she has to pay for her treatment or possibly has a higher co payment. Do I have that right?
ReplyDeleteThe article that Matt linked is a year old and it's when Jillian Barbiari had an auction for Debra's medical expenses. Debra was unfortunate to have been diagnosed with breast cancer about nine months before she turned 65 years old when Medicare kicks in. Debra turned 65 in November 2017 and Medicare should be paying almost all of her medical expenses now depending what supplemental plan she has with her Medicare. The supplemental plans are not that expensive.
ReplyDeleteHealth insurance is very expensive in the few years before you turn 65, Debra must have had a policy with a high deductible and a high cap on co-pay expenses. Cancer is not something you can't wait around and not treat for a few months until the Medicare kicks in like a hip replacement or something.
Hey Deb, I think you are only going to the first link that Matt posted to explain that it may be for medical purposes, but if you scroll down the post you'll see the second link that goes to the new auction.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Deb, you bring up a good point, why does she need money now if she's past 65 and on Medicare? Perhaps she can spare a few of those thousands of dollars she'll be pulling in to give her father a proper burial? Or at least turn his ashes over to his grandkids to do so?
Call me crazy, but the sleeves and collars between the wedding dress that Debra shows on Inside Edition look nothing like the one in Sharon's wedding photos. The Inside Edition dress has blue strips on the collar and cuffs but nothing on the photographed wedding dress from England. Is it even the same damn dress? Were adjustments made? Or is someone about to get ripped off of roughly 50K?
ReplyDeletePeter...isn't Medicare socialized medicine? My doctor is from Poland and we discussed socialized medicine (which by the way we are the only major country that does not have a national healthcare plan...keeps us showing up at those jobs for the insurance benefits) ..anyway my doctor said with socialized medicine a 90 year old may not be approved for a heart transplant...my thought is if you are 90 u don't need a heart transplant. As far as Debra goes..I think she is probably against socialized medicine and if that is the case I do not feel sorry for her that she has to sell her sister's things.
ReplyDeleteCindy Lee, Debra most likely started her cancer treatment before her Medicare began. It's enormously expensive to treat and the bills do not always start rolling in right away. I believe that the medical industry has a year to bill someone for services incurred. Debra would have had her surgery first and then moved on to chemo and after that radiation treatments. Depending on what stage her cancer was in she may have had to have a few sessions of chemo over weeks or months.
ReplyDeleteSo, her medical bills before Medicare would still need to be paid, Medicare does not pay retroactively. I think I understand why she needs the money. She may not be able to qualify for other medical aid, like MediCal because she has the assets of her sister's belongings which could be very valuable. She also might own a home and other assets. I'm not quite sure what qualifies as assets in this situation. Do someone's famous dead sister's belongings count? I'm not sure.
Going forward from the time she turned 65 will be a lot easier on her finances.
"My thought is if you are 90 u don't need a heart teansplant."
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts interest me. Please share some more treatments and the people you feel shouldn't be entitled to them.
Yes Peter while a 90 year old might be denied a heart transplant, millions of others receive care they need. Seems like a fair tradeoff to me.
DeleteThat's because you aren't 90 and don't need a heart transplant.
DeleteDonna Nelson said...
ReplyDeletewith socialized medicine a 90 year old may not be approved for a heart transplant...my thought is if you are 90 u don't need a heart transplant
That was the kind of logic with which Hitler approached the mentally ill and disabled. But it was logical.
while a 90 year old might be denied a heart transplant, millions of others receive care they need. Seems like a fair tradeoff to me
Well, why pinpoint a 90 year old ? If denying a 12 year old life giving treatment will enable millions {a slight exaggeration there} to receive the care they need, is that not a fair tradeoff ? What's not to love ?
David said...
with truly universal health care this would be unnecessary
I came in for quite a bit of criticism last year when the news of Debra's cancer came to light and her friend launched an appeal for funds to go towards her medical bills. I pointed out that in the UK such an appeal would be unnecessary because of our health system, unless it involved some experimental treatment not yet ratified by the national health service. For all its flaws, not having the system we do would be disastrous for great swathes of the population, including yours truly.
Hey David - I guess the rest of the world must be wrong? Not interested in debating. Let's hope you have good insurance or lots of money if you become ill. Goodnight David...put your usual conservative talking points to bed with you.
ReplyDeleteI thought David was broadly in favour of universal health care.
ReplyDeleteCindy Lee said...
ReplyDeletePerhaps she can spare a few of those thousands of dollars she'll be pulling in to give her father a proper burial?
That's kind of harsh. The two subjects don't even belong in the same hemisphere.
Grim said: "I thought David was broadly in favour of universal health care."
ReplyDeleteChannelling Patty: David is. I was injured in Dover in 1994 and my experience changed not only my mind but that of my Eisenhower Republican father (we were visiting locations in France and England where he had been 50 years before). Although the radiology nurse did not think my statement in response to the sign, there, on the wall was the least bit funny:
Me: "I think I should inform you, I'm pregnant."
Her: "Quiet, please!"
Donna Nelson said: "Goodnight David...put your usual conservative talking points to bed with you."
You must be confusing me with someone else. I am sorry if I contributed to your misunderstanding. Although I will blame Grim for your comment as he only quoted part of my previous comment.
"My second thought was 'with truly universal health care this would be unnecessary'. Yes, I mean social**** medicine."
The 'this' was an auction.
And because I enjoy blaming Grim when the opportunity arises. ;-)
I thought Obamacare is supposed to take care of everyone's medical bills.
ReplyDeleteCarolMR said: " I thought Obamacare is supposed to take care of everyone's medical bills. "
ReplyDelete"Obamacare" was a compromise to get it passed through US Congress, and Obama said it needed much more to become a more effective US universal health care program. Unfortunately the political opposition has refused to allow that to happen so far.
You spelled "rammed down the country's throat by a supermajority of Democrats in both houses of Congress" wrong.
ReplyDeleteIf you’re looking for an example of nationalized healthcare- look no further than the VA. I know this firsthand and have my own private insurance because the services are just that bad. There’s a difference between me thinking this and me living this- I’ve lived it. It’s an antiquated system and is broken.
ReplyDeleteAs it is, I pay 45% of my income to the government. The roads I drive on everyday are some of the worst in the country yet I pay the highest state taxes in the country. I live this, I don’t THINK this.
Most people have no clue what the rest of the world is like. Who’s spent time in Africa? Please tell me about the pollution in Kabul? What’s it like in Beijing? Nice clean air? You sure everywhere else in the world has top notch healthcare?
People definitely have their vision clouded by their immediate surroundings. Even here - in Canada - with truly universal health care - smokers bitch and whine about a $12 pkg of cigarettes (healthcare covers cessation programs/products) and, drivers bemoan the $1.61/Litre of gas...but, not the cost of treatment such as the type this auction is to support.
DeleteI wonder if the insurer said to DT, "Don't you have these tangible assets of your slain celeb sister that you could hawk to pay for this?!"
I wouldn't put it past them. My mother was fully insured for travel And, her bowel burst into her lungs in Arizona during a return from a Mexican vacay. The INSURER decided to whip her home after surgery via air ambulance. The kept telling her (at every point in the process) "Oh, you've got full travel insurance and, healthcare back home
...you'll be fine!"
I stance company sent a bill for $146,000. Retirement nest egg decimated.
I had to go ballistic in tbem to get it reduced to $49k. Tbey clearly sent a bill with a number (on their end) drawn in ($50k?) that was their "line in the sand" to collect.
That you have to LIVE this crap after your tours of service AC - that's a whole different scam/scheme/embarrassment/shame. I'm sickened to hear that.
The gov't had enough money to bail out the banks and their foriegn adventurism and in this case their mind control experiments.
ReplyDeleteCharlie had the same handler as Oswald; what more you gotta know? What about the lawyers meeting Tex and Charlie premurders? Is there a refutation of Mae Brussels out there? Please edify me on debunking her research....
Cointelpro and dirty tricks program I should add
ReplyDeleteDan S said...
ReplyDeleteCharlie had the same handler as Oswald...
Huh? Explain please.
hippie doll said...
ReplyDeleteI just can't imagine...holding onto your sister's things for so long, and the sadness, feeling of loss (again) & possibly regret, she would feel on the actual day of the sale
I can't either. But the feelings may well be tempered by the fact that with the money from the sales she can meet bills incurred for treatment that have helped keep her alive.
Peter said...
Yes, with truly socialized medic8ne, she would have been euthanized long ago
Pete, you'll have to explain that one to me. I don't know if something got lost in translation there or just lost !
That's because you aren't 90 and don't need a heart transplant
That thought crossed my mind.
If Donna had put it as a choice wherein on the one hand you have a 90 year old in need of a heart transplant and on the other, a series of treatments for younger people then at least one could get to grips with the rationale of going with that which benefits the majority. But that's not how she put it, it was more in a "you're old, you no longer merit consideration, your health needs are largely irrelevant" kind of tone. Besides which, universal health systems don't really work like that, in an "it's either this or it's that" kind of way.
AstroCreep said...
I know this firsthand and have my own private insurance because the services are just that bad
Here in the UK, even though we have what can loosely be described as a universal healthcare system, lots of people still have private medical insurance. The idea is that regardless of whether you choose to have it, if you do not you can be treated anywhere in the country at any time. The taxman siphons off a little bit of money from each person's wages so we do pay towards it but it's in a way that you really don't notice it.
I find that some people resent pooling the money in a universal pot, especially when they're not ill or in need of it but the point is that everyone contributes and come that day that you do need it, you're not going to be faced with 146,000 whatevers to pay.
Most people have no clue what the rest of the world is like. Who’s spent time in Africa?
I lived for 4 years in Nigeria. That should count !
Seriously though, my Mum was a nurse and I would not want to be ill in Nigeria. Fortunately, the two times that I had malaria there, my Mum knew what injections to give me. It paid having someone on the inside !
What’s it like in Beijing? Nice clean air?
Funnily enough, my sister's son is there at the moment on a school trip. When an exchange student from China came to stay with them my sister told me that she kept going out into their garden and walking around. At that time it was pretty cold and my sister couldn't understand why the girl spent so much time outdoors so she asked her and the girl said that where she lived, there were no trees or birds because of the polluted air and so she was amazed to be somewhere with an abundance of trees and birds. When my nephew was asked if it really was that bad, he off handedly said, "I suppose..."
Teenage boys evidently don't notice things like trees and birds in this phone age !
Doug Smith said...
People definitely have their vision clouded by their immediate surroundings
Clouded or opened up. I can't even imagine receiving a medical bill for 50k, let alone 146k. Actually, I can't even imagine receiving a medical bill.
It certainly shocked us! Having our Canadian Health Care AND, Travel Insurance...being at the hands of the insurers 3 card Monty bullshit...not right.
DeleteBut - my mom's alive...if defeated
Here is the question
ReplyDeleteWhich Alisa Statman could have answered before she went rogue
This shit belonged to Sharon. Therefore it is part of her Estate. Therefore when she died it belonged to Paul and Doris. When they died it belonged 3/4 to Patti Tate's kids.
Does vile, putrid, sick in the head Debra have the right to sell this crap
ReplyDeleteDan S, are you saying Ed Butler was their handler or someone else?
OT
ReplyDeleteThe fight for Manson's estate has been whittled down to two. As you recall Jason Freeman won the rights to Charlie's body in Kern County where Charlie last resided. The fight for the estate is going on in Los Angeles County because that is Manson's last county of residence before he was incarcerated.
The prelim for the trial will be December 14th with the trail taking place sometime next year.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Charles-Manson-Sons-Mass-Killings-Estate-California-488125841.html
ColScott said: "Does [parts deleted] Debra have the right to sell this crap?"
ReplyDeleteVery interesting question.
I went over to your old site to take a look at Col. Tate's will. http://tatelabianca.blogspot.com/2006/02/ka-boom-will-arrivedand-all-that.html
I have a couple questions, if you know.
Question #1: the residual clause (5. Residue) says the remainder of Col. Tate's estate goes into trust for his grandkids. Do you know what the trust says?
Here is what the will says: "The trust provisions are set forth below." But they are not on the post.
Question #2: Up at the top of the will it says this: "I hereby give certain my tangible personal property to those named in a written statement or list which I intend to be in existence at my death, which statement shall either be in my handwriting, or signed by me, which shall contain a description of the specific items and recipients of such property."
Do you know if he left such a list?
If there is no list giving Sharon's things to Debra the trust would determine what happened to Sharon's things and I believe you are correct: she may not have 'title'. The trustee initially had 'title' and if the trust terminated at say last grandchild to reach age 30 or some such the grandkids have 'title'.
Caveat: Unless Doris and/or Col. Tate gave Sharon's things to Debra while they were alive (or to Patti who gave them to Debra).
Aside: Reading his will again hit me kind of hard. I'm having a beer. That man buried two of his daughters. We are not supposed to bury our children. They are supposed to bury us.
I believe the guy who got Oswald his commie credentials (People for Cuba Committee or some such) was Charlie's P.O..
ReplyDeleteDan S said...
ReplyDeleteI believe the guy who got Oswald his commie credentials (People for Cuba Committee or some such) was Charlie's P.O.
You believe or you know or it is substantiated/verified ?
I think Ed Butler was the guy who gave Oswald the Fair Play cred (according to Mae B. in a radio show currently available on YouTube). Ed also supposedly went to see Charlie at TI but he wasn't his PO.
ReplyDeleteI imagine the auction house is getting a far amount of whatever the auctioned items bring. It seems to me that anyone who'd like to win the auction and return the items to Debra might do better to simply mail her a donation.
ReplyDeleteMatt, why aren't you covering the Arlis Perry murder being solved if you haven't heard about it yet, it wasn't the Process, surprise, surprise.
ReplyDeleteThe Arlis Perry murder really didn't have anything to do with the Family. It happened in 1974 and was only injected into the mix because of Maury Terry and Mae Brussells. Shocker, they were wrong and honestly, they have been wrong about a lot of things.
ReplyDeleteSure it's only related through Maury Terry, it was still interesting, and very creepy. Glad it was solved.
ReplyDeleteThe Process is one of my favorite cults to study so the solving of the murder of Arlis Perry, is very important especially to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. I was donating to Best Friends for years before I even heard of the Process. By the way the Process Documentary, "Sympathy For the Devil," is now available on DVD.
ReplyDeleteBeauders, to us it was just a non-story. To me kinda like Zodiac being tied to TLB somehow.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat’s cool I am just interested in the case and was excited to see it solved. I realize it has no real revalense to Manson or the blog.
DeleteGreenWhite said...
ReplyDelete... Ed Butler ...also supposedly went to see Charlie at TI but he wasn't his PO.
You're probably thinking of Long Beach labor attorney George Shibley, who did time with Manson at TI in the late '50s. Shibley went to visit Charlie just before his release from TI in '67, though the reason for the visit was never explained.
Yes, you’re right. I’m a mess lol. I’m spending way too many hours per day on this case! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteI mentioned the Zodiac a friend and he brought up Bruce Davis as a suspect. Of course he was wrong. Everybody knows several other people's fathers were the one and only Zodiac.
I was hoping you guys and gals would let me know how verified my belief is on the Oswald Manson connection. Like usual I gotta do more reading. Unexplained premurder prison lawyer visits to Tex and Charlie have to mean something. Thread hijack alert!
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's relevant in that Debra's legendary hatred of the killers should include the real prime mover in this case
Dan S said..
ReplyDelete"I was hoping you guys and gals would let me know how verified my belief is on the Oswald Manson connection."
I would characterize that as a possible CIA-Manson connection.
"Unexplained premurder prison lawyer visits to Tex and Charlie have to mean something."
As far as I can tell, all of Tex's visits to those Beverly Hills attorneys had to do with a liability lawsuit over his busted-up knee in that auto accident. Which was probably just another Watson scam to get some easy money. But nothing ever came of it, I believe
starviego said...
ReplyDeleteI would characterize that as a possible CIA-Manson connection.
I touched on that subject here, if you're interested:
http://www.mansonblog.com/2018/02/was-cia-behind-tlb.html
Starviego, that's one of my favorite pieces on here. I see you taking shit occasionally for your posts and I dig that you keep going.
ReplyDeleteDavid said...
ReplyDelete... she may not have 'title' ...
Out of my curiosity for most legal things, would one expect the auction house to have any responsibility to ensure a clean, clear title on the part of the seller?
Thanks.
Carlos,
ReplyDeleteYou would think so but, no.
When I signed up with this auction site (not the actual auction, yet) I clicked that box "agree to terms and conditions" one was a big 'caveat emptor'.
I would think it would become a big issue if a bunch of people asked the question. Otherwise the auction house is warranting nothing. And given the comments, above, about the wedding dress. I'd say there is already an authenticity issue.
But if they say 'we are representing nothing (legally): buyer beware.
And again: we don't know Doris didn't give the items to Patti who gave them to Debra.
David said...
ReplyDeleteYou would think so but, no.
Can’t say I’m surprised.
My curiosity was raised by this bit from one of the auction house’s documents:
Title to such products purchased by you from the Service passes from Company (or, as applicable, from the Company’s authorized third-party fulfillment provider) to you upon shipment.
I had wondered if since they claim title passes from them and not a seller like Debra they would have any responsibility regarding that title.
Thanks again.
My mom died of breast cancer in 2016. Trust me, Medicare doesn't pay for jack shit hardly! Thank God she had a Medicare supplement plan that paid for a lot, but they also follow the guidelines of Medicare, which means if Medicare won't cover a certain procedure or medication, the supplement won't either. My mom ended up paying for a lot of her medical expenses out of pocket. They also have Medicare Advantage plans that help cover costs too. Those are a bit more affordable that supplement plans. Also, Medicare isn't a social program. You pay into your Medicare by working, or having a spouse work. Medicaid, on the other hand is a social program, but not everyone qualifies. It pays for most everything, but it is hard to qualify if you own your own home, or have any assets. They do a financial investigation on you for the last five years to see if you transfer properties or quit claim deed houses, etc over to someone else in order to qualify. If you're on disability, however, you automatically qualify for Medicaid. In closing, I do not wish that horrible disease on anyone! I also wish Debra a speedy recovery. She has a long, difficult road ahead!
ReplyDeleteVIVE LA FRANCE!!
ReplyDeleteWouldn't Roman have been the beneficiary of Sharon's estate, not Doris and Paul?
ReplyDeleteGrim Traveler...the point was implied.
ReplyDeleteDavid said...
ReplyDeleteVIVE LA FRANCE!!
France were my tip once we got to the knockout phase. They simply played the most exciting football. At the same time, I hate dominance in sport, I want a level playing field so if Croatia had won, I wouldn't have minded as it would have meant a new winner like we had in 2010 and '98.
France's first two goals were both the results of diabolical refereeing decisions though. That said, I love goals, as one famed commentator in 1974 said, "goals pay the rent," so to have 6 in a final was mouth watering for me. Finals are usually so cautious.
This one was anything but.
AustinAnn74 said...
Medicare isn't a social program. You pay into your Medicare by working, or having a spouse work
Our national health service is along those lines. Out of our wages each month comes tax and a thing called national insurance so it's not a freebie. In a sense, it works out that everyone pays towards one another's healthcare. But we generally don't think of it in those terms, we just pay NI and one does not notice it. But if you should find yourself in need of an operation or cancer treatment for the rest of your days, you're covered. You don't end up having to empty your life savings or anything else. Now, people do have to pay a prescription charge for medicines, but there are so many exemptions and combinations of exemptions depending on one's ailment. Someone with cancer will generally have an exemption card which enables them to get other medicines free although that may depend on what condition the other medicine is treating.
Donna Nelson said...
ReplyDeletethe point was implied
I don't think it was Donna. You actually stated "my thought is if you are 90 u don't need a heart transplant" which is an absolute statement rather than one that implies that there is a choice between others being treated and a 90 year old having a heart transplant. Your Polish doctor said that the 90 year old may not be approved a heart transplant, not would not be approved.
I remember some 13 or so years ago, there was a case here of a famous footballer that for the previous 30 years was more known for his alcoholism and unreliability than his great football {and he truly had been one of the greats} and there was some furious public debate when he came up for a liver transplant. Many people felt that he shouldn't be given a liver at the public's expense because he was making no promises about staying off the booze and others said it was a waste of money and that others could benefit better than he would etc. But that's not how the system worked. Him not having the transplant wouldn't mean that a child waiting for a donor for some other part, for example would benefit or someone waiting for an artificial limb would get it if this guy didn't. The way money is allocated in healthcare is a little more convoluted than a simple either/or. In this guy's case, the liver match was available.
But you seemed to be saying that because someone is 90 and theoretically near to death, they've had their life so why should they need and therefore be given a new heart. They're not going to be around much longer.
Well apparently you did not get the implied part.
DeleteCarolMR said: "Wouldn't Roman have been the beneficiary of Sharon's estate, not Doris and Paul?"
ReplyDeleteYes, but Roman waived his rights to the estate.
It's hard to get an implied "other" in an absolute remark.
ReplyDeleteLet's not split hairs Grim. Too much over-analyzing on this site as it is.
DeleteThe auction is taking place with the approval of her sister - see The Tate Family Legacy on Facebook - this blog is filled with such dim wits.
ReplyDeleteKathleen diDimwitt, if you had read the post carefully you would have had the opportunity to comprehend that we were fully aware of that...
ReplyDeleteDonna Nelson said...
ReplyDeleteLet's not split hairs Grim. Too much over-analyzing on this site as it is
Fair enough. Let me do a Kanarek and ask you this then. Do you think someone of the age of 90 should be given a heart transplant and if not, why not ? I don't know if that qualifies as over analyzing, but for the record, I don't want to assume and I'm genuinely curious.
Grim...better for the majority to have healthcare. The 90 year old example was stated by my doctor. If u r 90, in all likelihood you don't have much longer to live as well there are probably other health issues along with frailty that would not make you a good candidate for a heart transplant, the transplant could kill u. So yes I would rather see care go to millions of others.
ReplyDeleteMy own mother could have benefited from a kidney transplant, but because she had other major health issues, she was not a good candidate for a transplant. My mother was only 61 when she died, so this is not about a 90 year old per se- it is simply about not being a good candidate for a particular major surgery such as an organ transplant. My mother understood this and preferred that other better candidates for available kidneys be recipients of transplant.
DeleteSo that means the items were recovered from this theft. I wonder if anyone was prosecuted?
ReplyDeletehttp://sensationalsharontate.blogspot.com/2011/09/sharons-wedding-dress-among-items.html
Donna Nelson said...
ReplyDeleteMy own mother could have benefited from a kidney transplant, but because she had other major health issues, she was not a good candidate for a transplant. My mother was only 61 when she died, so this is not about a 90 year old per se- it is simply about not being a good candidate for a particular major surgery such as an organ transplant
I can dig that. That's what I was looking for clarification on.
Just out of interest, what if there were no other health issues to complicate matters ?
Glad we finally connected Grim. My mother also had congestive heart failure.
ReplyDeleteI was noticing the wedding dress is different in her wedding photos..no blue velvet ribbon on neck and sleeves..is it the same dress? Altered?
ReplyDelete