Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FlamingCobra on July 27, 2013, 05:40:15 pm
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23475583
Wish we'd adopt these standards in the United States.
-
Wish we'd adopt these standards in the United States.
Are you referring to requiring people to meet a certain level of health (that is higher than the norm) in order to immigrate? [/reserving judgement]
-
No. Everybody.
-
No. Everybody.
If you mean the population of the United States be held to such standards, what happens if they break them?
-
They get put on a mandatory exercise routine (might be hard to implement), or pay an additional "fat tax". The latter could surely help the US with that debt of theirs...
-
No. Everybody.
I would like to be in perfect understanding: You wish that every person above a certain weight was banished from the United States of America. Yes?
-
They get put on a mandatory exercise routine (might be hard to implement), or pay an additional "fat tax". The latter could surely help the US with that debt of theirs...
Haha, imagine people that have to pay the fat tax
As if their confidence isn't already shot. Now the government is calling them taxable due to obesity!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23475583
Wish we'd adopt these standards in the United States.
Yeah, sure, punish the sick because your health care system is ****ed, that's a good idea.
Disgusting, that's what this is. Offer positive incentives for healthy living, not punishment for the opposite. Works much better.
-
I am all for strict immigration standards, but one based on weight? :lol: I did not expect this to exist... and it does not sit well with me.
-
Can we also decide who gets to live in the country based on intelligence and throw out the idiot who decided that this was a good idea? :p
I mean, idiots probably cost just as much to the health service as fat people. Facial reconstruction on people who don't realise you need to turn the blender off before trying to lick the beaters isn't cheap.
-
sick
Excuse me. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you saying obesity is a sickness?
-
For some people, it is.
Other people are just naturally heavy built. Discriminating against either is utterly, horrifyingly disgusting, especially in a case like this.
The point isn't really whether it's a sickness or not. It's a health issue, however, and that's what they're arguing on. What's next, are they going to deny entry to people because they've got the markers for breast cancer in their genome?
-
For some people, it is.
Other people are just naturally heavy built. Discriminating against either is utterly, horrifyingly disgusting, especially in a case like this.
The point isn't really whether it's a sickness or not. It's a health issue, however, and that's what they're arguing on. What's next, are they going to deny entry to people because they've got the markers for breast cancer in their genome?
I agree with this. I just didn't want you to define all obese people as sick. I totally oppose the decision made against this man.
-
And who would trust the cookings of a skinny chef!
-
Really? I didn't expect this level of disapproval, TBH. New Zealand is a sovereign country - they can refuse entry to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose. And New Zealand's health care system isn't "****ed" - it's comparable to our own here in Aus (i.e. primarily taxpayer funded) which, while not the best in the world, is pretty OK by most metrics. The decision was to disallow entry based on a likely future burden on the health system, and, FYI, these decisions are made all the time. It makes news here every few years when someone prominent (usually a doctor) is refused permanent residency in Australia because of health issues (often in members of the family), but I'm sure it happens far, far more often for less "valuably employed" migrants.
Immigration departments have to weigh the value and the costs of every decision they make. They're not always right, but the system exists for a reason. Remember that nobody has the inalienable right to live anywhere they're not a citizen.
-
I smell another talk on bureaucracy and politics... :P
-
Really? I didn't expect this level of disapproval, TBH. New Zealand is a sovereign country - they can refuse entry to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose. And New Zealand's health care system isn't "****ed" - it's comparable to our own here in Aus (i.e. primarily taxpayer funded) which, while not the best in the world, is pretty OK by most metrics. The decision was to disallow entry based on a likely future burden on the health system, and, FYI, these decisions are made all the time. It makes news here every few years when someone prominent (usually a doctor) is refused permanent residency in Australia because of health issues (often in members of the family), but I'm sure it happens far, far more often for less "valuably employed" migrants.
Immigration departments have to weigh the value and the costs of every decision they make. They're not always right, but the system exists for a reason. Remember that nobody has the inalienable right to live anywhere they're not a citizen.
But the surrounding circumstances, such as the fact that that guy had been working there without issue for years and that he was actually losing weight make it a bit more noteworthy. I agree that it's the sovereign right of the NZ government to refuse entry. But "future burden for the health care system" is a bit flimsy imho.
-
Not only that, but while he qualifies as obese, it's not like he's sumo-sized or anything.
-
Really? I didn't expect this level of disapproval, TBH. New Zealand is a sovereign country - they can refuse entry to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose. And New Zealand's health care system isn't "****ed" - it's comparable to our own here in Aus (i.e. primarily taxpayer funded) which, while not the best in the world, is pretty OK by most metrics. The decision was to disallow entry based on a likely future burden on the health system, and, FYI, these decisions are made all the time. It makes news here every few years when someone prominent (usually a doctor) is refused permanent residency in Australia because of health issues (often in members of the family), but I'm sure it happens far, far more often for less "valuably employed" migrants.
Immigration departments have to weigh the value and the costs of every decision they make. They're not always right, but the system exists for a reason. Remember that nobody has the inalienable right to live anywhere they're not a citizen.
But the surrounding circumstances, such as the fact that that guy had been working there without issue for years and that he was actually losing weight make it a bit more noteworthy. I agree that it's the sovereign right of the NZ government to refuse entry. But "future burden for the health care system" is a bit flimsy imho.
Not really when you look at it from a macro level. Publicly supported health care systems work on the principle that most of the taxable population is healthy and supporting a smaller percentage of those who are old and or have major health issues. Obesity causes a wide range of major health issues that can lead to folks who otherwise should be paying into the system to be drawing out. It does not sound so much that NZ is concerned that this one individual is a health concern they don't want to support, its that if they were not stringent and had a large influx of unhealthy people that could throw off the percentages of healthy people paying in and unhealthy folks drawing out. I'm not privy to NZ's research and statistics to know whether there is a real and credible danger to their health care system without this policy, but if there is hard evidence to back it up then its not flimsy.
-
Really? I didn't expect this level of disapproval, TBH. New Zealand is a sovereign country - they can refuse entry to anyone they choose, for any reason they choose. And New Zealand's health care system isn't "****ed" - it's comparable to our own here in Aus (i.e. primarily taxpayer funded) which, while not the best in the world, is pretty OK by most metrics. The decision was to disallow entry based on a likely future burden on the health system, and, FYI, these decisions are made all the time. It makes news here every few years when someone prominent (usually a doctor) is refused permanent residency in Australia because of health issues (often in members of the family), but I'm sure it happens far, far more often for less "valuably employed" migrants.
Immigration departments have to weigh the value and the costs of every decision they make. They're not always right, but the system exists for a reason. Remember that nobody has the inalienable right to live anywhere they're not a citizen.
But the surrounding circumstances, such as the fact that that guy had been working there without issue for years and that he was actually losing weight make it a bit more noteworthy. I agree that it's the sovereign right of the NZ government to refuse entry. But "future burden for the health care system" is a bit flimsy imho.
Not really when you look at it from a macro level. Publicly supported health care systems work on the principle that most of the taxable population is healthy and supporting a smaller percentage of those who are old and or have major health issues. Obesity causes a wide range of major health issues that can lead to folks who otherwise should be paying into the system to be drawing out. It does not sound so much that NZ is concerned that this one individual is a health concern they don't want to support, its that if they were not stringent and had a large influx of unhealthy people that could throw off the percentages of healthy people paying in and unhealthy folks drawing out. I'm not privy to NZ's research and statistics to know whether there is a real and credible danger to their health care system without this policy, but if there is hard evidence to back it up then its not flimsy.
I'm curious, do they treat smokers the same way? How about people with a genetic history of illness?
-
Let's address the elephant in the room. Is there anyone here who thinks he actually got thrown out for possibly being a drain on health resources?
Or do we all agree that he was kicked out cause someone doesn't like fat people and that this was then justified by making it about health resources?
-
Let's address the elephant in the room. Is there anyone here who thinks he actually got thrown out for possibly being a drain on health resources?
Or do we all agree that he was kicked out cause someone doesn't like fat people and that this was then justified by making it about health resources?
An interesting theory. But we lack the knowledge to make such a judgement. They may have tightened up the law, or the process might not be very tightly controlled, allowing disparities in judgements to occur.
-
Or do we all agree that he was kicked out cause someone doesn't like fat people and that this was then justified by making it about health resources?
It is the theory I'm operating on.
-
I'll be surprised if you find anyone other than Lorric who doesn't honestly think that's what happened. As others have pointed out, there are other things which make you a lot more likely to cost the health service money than someone who is obese but is actually trying to lose weight.
-
Or do we all agree that he was kicked out cause someone doesn't like fat people and that this was then justified by making it about health resources?
It is the theory I'm operating on.
You're both jumping to the worst possible conclusion, and making assumptions with nothing to back them up. The guy is old - I've not found an article that gives his precise age, but pictures suggest he's at least in his early fifties. He also has other conditions that are of a concern - http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/07/29/11/17/obese-man-won-t-be-deported-from-nz-yet
Finally, that article claims that he was applying for PR, which would tally with a five year stay, and so was subject to greater scrutiny.
It's always easy to assume the best or worst about people or situations - it makes them nice and simple, and, as a bonus, you get to feel superior. But remember that you're being marketed to by the click-hungry outrage machine of modern news media - the truth is always going to be more complicated than it's presented.
-
From the article posted by Black Wolf:
"They could have said that when I first applied for a visa. Six years down the line it's not fair to me," Mr Buitenhuis told TV3's Firstline.
But INZ says the issues haven't surfaced before because there are varying standards of medical testing for different visas, and when Mr Buitenhuis applied for residency he was subjected to more stringent examinations.
Those examinations found him too unhealthy to qualify for residency.
"Unless it is in the extreme, obesity will not in itself cause an applicant to fail health screening requirements," INZ area manager Michael Carley said.
Mr Buitenhuis has a chronic knee condition which needs surgery and his weight puts him at risk of diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, some cancers and premature joint disease, INZ says.
The South African also has evidence of impaired glucose tolerance and an enlarged fatty liver.
It's always easy to assume the best or worst about people or situations - it makes them nice and simple, and, as a bonus, you get to feel superior.
Well said.
-
It's always easy to assume the best or worst about people or situations - it makes them nice and simple, and, as a bonus, you get to feel superior. But remember that you're being marketed to by the click-hungry outrage machine of modern news media - the truth is always going to be more complicated than it's presented.
Just because you can find defensible reasons in this case does not mean I have to accept these reasons and move on, or agree with them in the slightest.
Citing public health reasons despite indications that the person in question is working to overcome these problems as a reason to refuse entry is wrong in my opinion.
I'm just glad that we do not have similar provisions around here.
-
How much do you actually know about this man's health? Or about the relevant actuarial analysis of it? More than the officials for whom no satisfying defence can apparently be posed?
-
How much do you actually know about this man's health? Or about the relevant actuarial analysis of it? More than the officials for whom no satisfying defence can apparently be posed?
No, of course I do not know any of these things. But even if everything the officials were able to determine was absolutely 100% correct, if the worst case happens and if this guy succumbs to one condition or another, I would still argue that the decision to refuse him entry was wrong. There is no difference between this and denying entry because of a history of breast cancer in the extended family. Or a case of Islam. Denying residence based on hypotheticals is wrong in my opinion.
-
So what happened to the medical justification obviously just being a flimsy rationalisation for denying him a visa for being fat?
-
That's still my primary hypothesis. All I'm saying is that if it isn't true, if the arguments put forth by the government are all valid, I would still consider it a wrong decision, based on what I said above.
-
Obviously they have a right to refuse the entry for almost any reason. And as the saying goes, you can have comfy welfare state or open borders, but you cant have both, so I can even see the rationale. But at least they should make this clear to immigrants a lot sooner than after six years in the country. The guy has a point there.
-
Let's address the elephant in the room. Is there anyone here who thinks he actually got thrown out for possibly being a drain on health resources?
Or do we all agree that he was kicked out cause someone doesn't like fat people and that this was then justified by making it about health resources?
I don't have a problem with The E's post, as he stated it was his theory. But Karajorma all but asserts it not as a prediction but as fact.
-
I wouldn't live in a country that would have me accepted as a citizen.
... wait! uhh. :nervous:
-
Seeing as I worked here (http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/menu-eng.html) in a former life, I feel I might be a little qualified to chime in.
If New Zealand's immigration laws are anything like ours - and I suspect that they are, as the Commonwealth nations with socialized health care have pretty similar immigration law - this decision is neither unsurprising nor particularly out of the ordinary.
People can come to Canada on worker's visas, which are subject to a number of conditions and expire after a set amount of time; months or years, depending on the visa and case. Visitor workers staying beyond a set period of time are subject to medical evaluations because they become eligible for medical care after a certain period of residency. A visa does not guarantee future visas. That's the point - if you want to stay permanently, you have to apply for permanent residency.
What has probably occurred here is that the medical evaluations since he first moved to NZ have subsequently changed, and there are now stricter health standards. Because his visa appears to be a yearly matter, he is eligible for health care coverage. The 'burden' provision is a policy decision that evaluates health against known risk factors; he may have passed last time, but doesn't qualify any longer.
Here's the thing: the man is not a NZ citizen. He is not a permanent resident. He is a foreign worker. His status in NZ is legally temporary. He works on a visa. If he wanted to reside there permanently, he has had ample time to apply. He apparently has not. Therefore, his visa can be cancelled at any time for a variety of reasons, and its renewal can be denied for no reason whatsoever. If he was unhappy with that state of affairs, he should have sought to change his status. He didn't, and now NZ is perfectly within his legal rights to send him packing on whatever grounds they choose.
If you don't have a passport with the name of the country on it, or a card (http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migrant/stream/alreadyinnz/residents/nextsteps/prvrequirements.htm) with virtually the same rights, do not assume you have the right to live and stay in that country.
Perhaps having worked in a customs/immigration environment I have a more jaded view, but I am not in the slightest bit sympathetic to the man's plight. He had options, he didn't take them, and now he's being sent back to the country he has a legal right to reside in because he no longer has that status in NZ.
-
Well, when you put it that way, it seems like a reasonable decision. However, I still sympathize. The chef might have not gotten permanent residence because he didn't want or risk being denied or thought he'd be scrutinized more at the time. I know many family members who don't do their census because they are afraid or because they don't understand it. The man understood the visa. That doesn't mean he understood how to be a citizen or a permanent residence.
It probably is deserved, and he should have understood the system better, but I still feel sorry for him.
-
No. Everybody.
I would like to be in perfect understanding: You wish that every person above a certain weight was banished from the United States of America. Yes?
-
No. Everybody.
I would like to be in perfect understanding: You wish that every person above a certain weight was banished from the United States of America. Yes?
Absolutely not. We instate a Fat Tax and a Fat Police and whip everybody into shape.
-
No. Everybody.
I would like to be in perfect understanding: You wish that every person above a certain weight was banished from the United States of America. Yes?
Absolutely not. We instate a Fat Tax and a Fat Police and whip everybody into shape.
Then how does your earlier sentiment (referring to the standards that require kicking someone out of a country) apply?
Also, at what weight would such policies be implemented? And how would this apply to those who have no reasonable control over how much their bodies weigh? Would people be taken from their homes by these "Fat Police" and placed into camps until such a time as they meet your standards?
I ask these questions because you apparently feel very strongly that these people are a burden on you and are undeserving of the same considerations. Or at least, that's what I've taken from your posts.
-
Oh come on he's just being silly about it, can't you see?
-
We should wean the US off of soda and fried food.
-
We're in the process of doing so. At least for pop. I remember schools banning them awhile ago.
-
The way I see it, life without soda and fried food isn't worth living in the first place.
-
And you can still have it! Just have a lot less of it. :p