South African chef 'too fat' to live in New Zealand

[Snuffleupagus]

By your logic we should not treat police or firefighters either, after all they volunteered didnt they?

Actually, since people are taking this one-dimensional view (not you), let's carry it through.

We give the military, police, & firefighters treatment because they put themselves in harms way on our behalf. A chef who is fat however, does not. I will happily front the bill for a severed finger with my tax dollars, but not for self inflicted injuries.

Simply put, the aforementioned professions take the metaphorical (and sometimes literal) bullet for us, the chef who got fat does not.

- - - Updated - - -

So next time a suicide attempt gets wheeled into my local ER we can just push him back out the door, right?

That is dependent on the reason behind the attempt. To do what you just did shows a serious misunderstanding of the logic and cause behind most suicides.

- - - Updated - - -

Medical care should not be denied, no matter your creed, political views or life choices. If we deny people healthcare based any of those, we're completely missing the point of medical care and why we have it. To deny it, we deny people life. Denying people life is to break more than one human right and it would make us into monsters.

A noble sentiment, that's not how the world works. Governments can't afford to go broke, and healthcare costs money.

Footing the bill for an accident? Okay.

Footing the bill for years and years of bad choices (from someone who should be an expert on nutrition, no less)? Fuck no.

- - - Updated - - -

Good then, because he pays for that himself.
I don't know what country you life in, but here, people have to buy their own medicine with their own money.

Please, pray tell what country you live in that has so much bearing on NZ.

- - - Updated - - -

We've had cases here in Sweden but it was regarding children who had conditions they had not caused themselves. Those are cases I think we should help out of solidarity and empathy. You don't leave kids untreated.

This man is not a child, he is a chef. A chef.

[GnomeGrrl]

It's better to offer him that choice than it is to kick him out, the repercussions of his decision would obviously be his problem.

I'm pretty sure you're just taking the piss now. At least, I hope that's the case cos the alternative is that you're blasting Bieber from your iPod while playing Candy Crush Saga on your iPad ...

OK ... deep breath ... answer the questions ... here we go!

********************************************

Except that ultimately, it would become New Zealand's problem.

You may think it's an uncaring country based on this case, but it's really not. And, it is surprisingly liberal - heck, even our right is left! So, in this circumstance, one way or another, New Zealanders would wind up footing the bill.

- - - Updated - - -

New Zealanders aren't exactly paragons of health

And you're basing this on what exactly??

- - - Updated - - -

I can sorta understand that.
But only if the person isn't an actual citizen.

We've had cases here in Sweden but it was regarding children who had conditions they had not caused themselves. Those are cases I think we should help out of solidarity and empathy. You don't leave kids untreated.

Anyway, I might be arguing semantics at this point.

He's not a citizen. He's applied for residency. This man already has health complications resulting from his obesity, which I've mentioned before. Remember, he hasn't been working his entire life in New Zealand - he's only been there for 6 years. Even if he is allowed to begin working again, at 50 years old, with his health issues, he's fast approaching his shelf-life, so the scope of his required medical care, welfare payments once he's unable to work etc etc will likely be far greater than anything he's paid in taxes.

You did have one thing right - in New Zealand, you do have to pay for regular doctors visits and medications, but at a greatly subsidized rate. The cost is still moved on to the taxpayer, since it's them that pays for the reduced rate, not big corporations. But, if Sweden's system is anything like New Zealand's, then you're aware of the problems - underfunding, poor retention of qualified and experienced medical personnel, strikes, extreme waiting lists for non-urgent care etc etc etc. Why on earth should a country be expected to add extra burden to an already over-burdened system when they don't have to?

Frankly, I'm sure Sweden, just like New Zealand, just like the US, would deny someone for serious medical issues. Extreme humanitarian circumstances aside.

[Atrea]

The attitude towards other people's bodily autonomy in this thread is frankly disgusting.

"He should change who he is to fit within our definition of acceptable!"
"He should exercise more!"

It's sad that this man, who may be very happy being who he is, is being told that he shouldn't be. That he should be someone different. That who he is is not acceptable. To me, this is no different than someone interfering with a woman's right to control what happens with her own body (I refer to abortion rights here, in case it is unclear.)

What troubles me more, however, is not what is written in the article, but what is not: his age.
Supporters of this gentleman have asked, "Why was it okay for the last 6 years, but not now?"

Well, I can answer that: 6 years ago, he was 6 years younger. So this may not just be an issue of weight, but of age.

It's troubling that for the last 6 years, this gentleman's tax dollars were more than welcome; but now that he may be reaching an age where he might need to get a return on his investment, it's bye bye for him.

So you've got ableism, racism (don't tell me that it isn't racism, because if this man weren't an immigrant, this would be a non-issue), and ageism.

A trifecta of discrimination.

Stay classy, NZ.

[Afrospinach]

Stay classy, NZ.

As soon as other people start paying your medical bills your body autonomy is out the window, unless we start taxing people by their weight.

[Snuffleupagus]

So you've got ableism, racism (don't tell me that it isn't racism, because if this man weren't an immigrant, this would be a non-issue), and ageism.

A trifecta of discrimination.

Stay classy, NZ.

It's not racism (oh shit nigga, I just told you). If they were making specific rules about white South Africans you might have point. But they don't.

Public health means the health of the individual is public concern.

EDIT: Applicants intending to enter Canada as permanent residents may be denied entry to Canada if their health or any of their dependents' health (whether accompanying or not):
Is a danger to public health or safety; or
Would cause excessive demand on the Canadian health care system or on social services in Canada.

Other countries have similar policies, NZ is no different to the rest of the world, except for the balls of steel when calling out laziness.

And I know for a fact Australia has a similar policy on the books (although the limit may be higher IIRC).

[Deleted]

It's not racism (oh shit nigga, I just told you). If they were making specific rules about white South Africans you might have point. But they don't.

Public health means the health of the individual is public concern.

Then allow me to repeat myself. Why is it a concern for foreigners, and why isn't it a concern for citizens?

[Xarkan]

I was comparing them as in the are both self inflicted. You choose to be in the military, you choose to be fat. Both are a choice that can lead to injury, So why are we paying medical to one and not the other.



Don't mind me I have a bad habit of trying to play devils advocate.

Well i am sure if they get as much fat on their bones as the chef in the article their contract renewal can be somewhat hindered?

The state needs people in the military to protect its interests, the state wants people to take risks for the country (well more or less, the state wants people to take as little risk as possible while still achieving the goals.. bah nm it is not the point, the state needs them to take risks)

The state in general does not need people to eat them selves in an early grave, the state in general does not need me to smoke (well maybe the British state could care less if i smoke since i am not British but that is besides the point, heck they may even cheer me on so their health stats are better than the Danish)

The two cannot compare, the state has needs that must be filled and to get those needs filled the state has obligations towards those that fill them, they have few obligations to the rest

Does not mean i agree with Rich on his point, i do think health care should cover all because everyone is wrong. People can be skinny and die from fat around their heart, people can never smoke a cigarette and die of lung cancer because they stupidly live too close to London, the wheel spins and we die

Edit: Depending on the point heh, obviously no country should import expenses without considering them. I do not blame New Zealand for not wishing to have immigrants dying in their hospitals if they can help it

[Spectral]

The attitude towards other people's bodily autonomy in this thread is frankly disgusting.

"He should change who he is to fit within our definition of acceptable!"
"He should exercise more!"

It's sad that this man, who may be very happy being who he is, is being told that he shouldn't be. That he should be someone different. That who he is is not acceptable. To me, this is no different than someone interfering with a woman's right to control what happens with her own body (I refer to abortion rights here, in case it is unclear.)

What troubles me more, however, is not what is written in the article, but what is not: his age.
Supporters of this gentleman have asked, "Why was it okay for the last 6 years, but not now?"

Well, I can answer that: 6 years ago, he was 6 years younger. So this may not just be an issue of weight, but of age.

It's troubling that for the last 6 years, this gentleman's tax dollars were more than welcome; but now that he may be reaching an age where he might need to get a return on his investment, it's bye bye for him.

So you've got ableism, racism (don't tell me that it isn't racism, because if this man weren't an immigrant, this would be a non-issue), and ageism.

A trifecta of discrimination.

Stay classy, NZ.

I don't think you understand the purpose of immigration policies. Countries set policies that are advantageous for the country. As long as the immigrants aren't deceived, I don't really see the problem. Yes, NZ took someone that was productive and would pay taxes; now they don't desire to have someone that has a fairly high chance of becoming a burden on their system. That seems like rational policy making.

When people claim "ableism" in such a laughably nonsensical fashion, it undercuts actual discrimination against disabled people.

[GnomeGrrl]

I don't think you understand the purpose of immigration policies. Countries set policies that are advantageous for the country. As long as the immigrants aren't deceived, I don't really see the problem. Yes, NZ took someone that was productive and would pay taxes; now they don't desire to have someone that has a fairly high chance of becoming a burden on their system. That seems like rational policy making.

When people claim "ableism" in such a laughably nonsensical fashion, it undercuts actual discrimination against disabled people.

Lets not forget that New Zealand took him under different criteria, under a different visa. He's the one that moved the goal posts, not New Zealand. And yes, it is rational policy making. It's a public health system and the public pays a lot for it. Between what's taken out in federal taxes, what you pay for goods & services and the extra "money-grab" taxes on anything the government sees fit, they lose at least 50% of their pay check. With less than 4.5 million people, that's still not a huge amount going in, so any extra strain is noticeable.

I wondered when someone would bring racism in to it. Now, I may have a different definition of that than others, but to me, refusing to let a white guy stay in a predominantly white country just isn't it. New Zealand has a great relationship with South Africa, and interestingly, this isn't the first case. Why has this invited so much attention when the white American or the white British couple were denied based on the health risks related to their obesity? It's also not a question of his weight being "acceptable", it's about his weight being unhealthy and having (already existing) complications that will wind up costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Personally, I think everyone who thinks this is grossly unfair should check the immigration laws in their own country. Obesity may not be a specific reason for denial in some countries, but you may find that some of the underlying conditions that accompany it are. If I'd had some sort of illness (lets say, cancer) when I applied for US Residency, I'd have either been denied until I had successfully finished treatment, or my sponsor would have had to provide extra documents proving he could support the extra financial burden of my illness.

No country will take someone that is going to wind up being a public charge. It's just not in their best interests and countries with public health systems need to be even more vigilant when it comes to someone who's likely to require more out of it than he ever puts in.

[Orange Joe]

Lets not forget that New Zealand took him under different criteria, under a different visa. He's the one that moved the goal posts, not New Zealand. And yes, it is rational policy making. It's a public health system and the public pays a lot for it. Between what's taken out in federal taxes, what you pay for goods & services and the extra "money-grab" taxes on anything the government sees fit, they lose at least 50% of their pay check. With less than 4.5 million people, that's still not a huge amount going in, so any extra strain is noticeable.

I wondered when someone would bring racism in to it. Now, I may have a different definition of that than others, but to me, refusing to let a white guy stay in a predominantly white country just isn't it. New Zealand has a great relationship with South Africa, and interestingly, this isn't the first case. Why has this invited so much attention when the white American or the white British couple were denied based on their obesity? It's also not a question of his weight being "acceptable", it's about his weight being unhealthy and having (already existing) complications that will wind up costing the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Personally, I think everyone who thinks this is grossly unfair should check the immigration laws in their own country. Obesity may not be a specific reason for denial in some countries, but you may find that some of the underlying conditions that accompany it are. If I'd had some sort of illness (lets say, cancer) when I applied for US Residency, I'd have either been denied until I had successfully finished treatment, or my sponsor would have had to provide extra documents proving he could support the extra financial burden of my illness.

No country will take someone that is going to wind up being a public charge. It's just not in their best interests and countries with public health systems need to be even more vigilant when it comes to someone who's likely to require more out of it than he ever puts in.

Where are you getting that form? The link in the OP says he was applying for a work visa both times.

[GnomeGrrl]

Where are you getting that form? The link in the OP says he was applying for a work visa both times.

He applied for residency in 2011 and pulled the application after he realized it would be denied. He then attempted to renew his work permit and was denied.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/30/he...isa/?hpt=hp_t3
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8974...r-NZ-residency

[Orange Joe]

He applied for residency in 2011 and pulled the application after he realized it would be denied. He then attempted to renew his work permit and was denied.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/30/he...isa/?hpt=hp_t3
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8974...r-NZ-residency

Thank you. It said nothing about that in the OP.

[GnomeGrrl]

Thank you. It said nothing about that in the OP.

You're welcome. That CNN article is probably the most comprehensive I've read so far.

[Snuffleupagus]

Then allow me to repeat myself. Why is it a concern for foreigners, and why isn't it a concern for citizens?

Then allow me to repeat myself, how is it racism?

EDIT: Also adding for the slower people (don't worry, I copy/pasted this very slowly for you).

Immigration New Zealand did not cite Buitenhuis' weight for rejecting his work visa. The agency stated in a media release that obesity alone is not enough to fail the country's required health screenings. Instead, it cited a litany of Buitenhuis' obesity-related complications and stated that he had evidence of chronic knee joint condition, impaired glucose tolerance and enlarged fatty liver. The agency noted that a replacement surgery for Buitenhuis' knee joint condition could cost over US$16,000 (NZ$20,000).

"The applicant's ability to work is affected by the chronic knee joint condition that he suffers from," the agency stated.

It also listed his "significant risk of obesity complications" as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, obstructive sleep apnea, some cancers and premature joint diseases. The agency's medical assessors "have to consider to what extent there might be indications of future high-cost and high-need demand for health services."

EDIT 2:

"There's always been a restriction on immigration based on health issues, so the basic principle has always been, if you've got a major health problem that's a drain on the state, that counts against you in immigration," Jim Mann, professor of medicine and nutrition at University of Otago in New Zealand, told CNN. "I don't think that's unique in many countries."

Countries can test immigrants for infectious diseases like sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) or tuberculosis, but the difference is that countries also want to determine beyond potential infections to the economic cost for the state, he said.

"If someone says to me, 'is your risk greater from a whole range of medical issues because of obesity?' Yes it is. I may not like the prejudicial label attached to it. It's a true fact," Mann added.

[alemaite]

You're welcome. That CNN article is probably the most comprehensive I've read so far.

There's two things I thought I'd never read in a sentence.

[Verrayne]

This has made quite a few headlines in South Africa.

But I have to be on New Zealand's side of this. They probably tried it with Albert first, and now they are going for Kim Dotcom... (although he is a resident)