Don't take any notice of him..he is just following the crowd in applying a broad sweeping set of prejudices he feels is socially acceptable.
Get out fatty!
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
Don't take any notice of him..he is just following the crowd in applying a broad sweeping set of prejudices he feels is socially acceptable.
Except the obesity is centred on the indigenous populations? I know they tried to kick them out and suppress them a long time ago but they tend to rather sensitive about it these days! Or at least keeping the illusion of it.
BMI is a poor measure anyway - you wouldn't use that.
The problem is though in the main we don't have data for individuals as to the risk we have data for groups. The only time you could exclude an individual would be on actual proven known and quantifiable risk eg let's take the concern of the NZ government - the drain of renal replacement therapy - then you could exclude on known renal disease eg you could take blood and exclude say on a threshold of Cr > 200 or alternatively if they had a diagnosis associated eg say they were nephrotic and steroid resisting. I would also draw your attention that groups are already excluded specifically age.
You may want to take that up with some who says 'making yourself fat' is a personal choice. However, I have not. I would draw your attention to the the two times I have mentioned genetic along with environment predisposition.
Last edited:
Not all, as I pointed out, the only group showing a large increase in obesity is the Asian ethnic population, should they not therefore exclude Asians as they are statistically a greater risk factor and therefore potential burden on their health service?
Yet that is exactly what they appear to have done....the NZ Authorities say that immigrants should have an acceptable standard of health, being overweight doesn't automatically make you unhealthy, just as being slim doesn't automatically make you healthy. Risk in this context should assessed on an individual basis rather than broad application of statistical data, it is a more equal, representative and fair approach in my opinion.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,593
- Location
- Warwickshire
Ahhh it's army man, an organisation famous for its tolerance of fat people. Presumably in your army days you never once mocked a fat person with your squad or whatever? But now you're fat, it's completely unacceptable.
Impractical for the reasons already mentioned.
Actually I am not fat...nor was I in the Army. And no, as an adult I never maliciously mocked anyone for anything, least of all their weight.
It's not, it's has a cost attached to it, its not impractical.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,593
- Location
- Warwickshire
Impractical for cost reasons is still impractical.
Not when the cost is borne by the individual or through private health insurance provision.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,593
- Location
- Warwickshire
That would be ideal, wouldn't it. However in reality, there's the small matter of those that can't afford it, those that don't have private health cover, enforcing the payments from the individual, administrative overhead...the list goes on and it's slightly naive to claim no incremental costs to NZ government vs. a blanket scheme of assessment.
Simply speaking, it's not as simple to enforce a better assessment scheme as you seem to believe.
It would be a condition of immigration, administration overheads already apply to immigration applications and are borne by the applicant so that argument is moot.
Tailored Private Health Insurance provision for immigrants is something that many countries already have as a condition of their work visas. Immigrants to the US are not eligible for domestic public health program's such as Medicaid for example. Similar restrictions could be applied in NZ with little difficulty, it would be then up to the immigrant themselves to bear the costs inherent in their health provision.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,593
- Location
- Warwickshire
Why do you think NZ doesn't assess risk on an individual basis then? Sheer pig-headedness? In reality it costs more. Anything more complicated always does.
I am not really sure why you are mentioning this for one it is not correct and secondly as Magnolia highlighted the problems in NZ in obesity are centred on the natural inhabitants of the islands.
Nowhere does it say that's what they have done. It says they have used his weight - nowhere does it say how they used his weight or which algorithm they plugged that figure into.
I have not said being overweight automatically makes you unhealthy or slim healthy. Neither have they. They have targeted risks discovered across populations. To assume you can make that decision on an individual basis is both naive and ignoring the fundamental problems of reductionist logic.
That is how health care works. You present with "something" that is found by some "observations" based on the best outcome for those "observations" measured across a group, over time, you are then placed into a protocol. That is the basis of evidence based healthcare.
I am not sure you realise the cost implications of what you ask. If you wanted to get a full assessment then you would have to expose people to substantial costs and therefore you would be restricting immigration to the healthy and wealthy not the people that may fill skills deficits in your nation.
Clearly this is a very recent change in policy, the reasons for which are unclear.
A simple restriction and requirement on PHS as a condition for visa applicants is not likely to bear a significant cost, particularly as it would be applied equally to all immigration applicants, therefore significantly reducing the burden on public health provision across the entire risk demographic rather than just those deemed to be a risk due to BMI/Weight.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,593
- Location
- Warwickshire
Nothing is simple between the public and private sectors. There'd be a huge cost both administratively and legally.
Last edited:
Indeed, it's ignoring the elephant (pardon the pun) in the room we do little to address the problem using a holistic view.
And where exactly does it say this is their sole criteria for assessment. Why do you think age limits apply differing criteria for immigrants across many nations. Amongst other things.
Private health insurance will discriminate on the same populations studies. As I highlighted if you want a real 'individual' assessment then I am not so sure you are wanting people to be spending that much ... it would be a lot. To exclude real risk factors or rather rule them out individually prohibitively expensive ... blood work and scans do not come cheap.
It is correct according to the statistics.
In other words they appear to have simply used his weight as a risk factor rather than his actual individual risk factor.
They have therefore made a decision based solely on his weight, not on his personal health. This is making an assumption that his weight automatically makes him a risk factor. Without a personal assessment it cannot be anything else.
I am not disputing that, however risk factors are used to apply assessment to individuals, not simply exclude them from health care provision.
Which is exactly what they are doing.....they are excluding anyone with a perceived potential risk of health issues, in this case solely based on weight, going by the information we currently have. Are they going to waive such restrictions based on weight for occupations that they have significant need for? If so, that is even more unfair.
Restrictions in public health provision to immigrants is not cost prohibitive, as the cost would be borne by the immigrant over time through private provision...it is not something that necessarily would be prohibitively expensive to the individual, besides is not the wealth or ability to support themselves already a factor of the individual in applications.
There is no evidence as yet that this decision is based on anything other than weight. At what weight does the risk become unacceptable? How do they assess it? What factors have changed in this persons application (other than his risk being significantly reduced in the last 6 years)?
It seems an unfair application of risk that could be dealt with better and more equally applied across all health risks given some simple restrictions and conditions of PHS applied to Visa applicants.
In the supplied article, in the case of this individual. It appears his weight was the factor that had his renewal turned down..not his age or other factors. It appears that the immigration setvice are applying a BMI limit as the criteria.
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/11/19/new-zealand-fat-no-immigration-for-you/
Also it is important to note that NZ already apply medical waivers to high risk groups and those with medical problems as well as applying a cost risk of NZ$41k over 5 years as being the limitation....will this man be likely to cost in excess of $41k over that period? I would not think so, in the absense of any actual disease and the fact that his application is reviewed annually.
http://liveinnewzealand.co.nz/new-zealand-immigration-requirements-rules/medical-problems.html
Yet it works and is not prohibitively expensive in other countries with such provisions.
Last edited:
Yet this doesn't happen in other countries, including our own.