[FlamingCobra]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23475583

Wish we'd adopt these standards in the United States.

[BloodEagle]

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]

[FlamingCobra]

No. Everybody.

[Lorric]

No. Everybody.

If you mean the population of the United States be held to such standards, what happens if they break them?

[Dragon]

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...

[BloodEagle]

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?

[deathfun]

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!

[The E]

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.

[666maslo666]

I am all for strict immigration standards, but one based on weight?  I did not expect this to exist... and it does not sit well with me.

[karajorma]

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?

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.

[Lorric]

sick

Excuse me. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you saying obesity is a sickness?

[The E]

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?

[Lorric]

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.

[castor]

And who would trust the cookings of a skinny chef!

[Black Wolf]

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.

[Lorric]

I smell another talk on bureaucracy and politics...

[The E]

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.

[Mongoose]

Not only that, but while he qualifies as obese, it's not like he's sumo-sized or anything.

[StarSlayer]

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.

[BloodEagle]

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?