Man "too fat" to be allowed to live in New Zealand

Recommended Videos

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
HoneyVision said:
Never EVER misuse the word "desire".
Thankfully, I didn't. You, however, misused "fault," which was the point in the first place.

Yan007 said:
He/She probably meant that it would be unjust to fault/blame a country for having certain policies in place.
Well yeah, but someone so clearly concerned about misuse of language should probably pick his/her words better.

ReinWeisserRitter said:
That's like saying, "Sure, that guy died of natural causes, but that guy got cut into a million pieces by a chainsaw, so he's way more dead." I don't really think they were going for a scale of one to ten on how fat he was, just that he was fat.

Although, it's more likely that they just had concerns about his health, since fat people tend to be unhealthy people.
To be fair, fat is a relative thing in terms of its burdens on/costs to society. Weight is an issue in which extra weight incurs extra risk of costs in a fairly progressive manner. How fat he is ends up being quite important, unlike having a scale of deadness. Someone roughly 100 lbs overweight is a much greater risk of cost to society because of a much greater tax on their body than someone who is 20 lbs overweight. In fact, that appears to be the issue at hand here: specifically that he is so overweight as to be well more of a problem than he's "worth."

While I doubt there's an actual scale, unless you count the scales used to weigh people or the BMI, the point is that he's so fat as to create a significant and undue burden on the system.

This doesn't mean I agree with Lilani, however, and I've made my argument there already. The notion that "there are fatter people" doesn't really excuse the fact that he's so enormous. And I don't say this to be a dick to the guy; I empathise with him. 100 lbs overweight, which is roughly what he is, is horrible.

What is suspect, however, is that this is after several years of no issue with his visa when he was 30kg heavier.
Wickatricka said:
Sounds alright to me. If they don't want fat people in their country then who are we to argue with them? Just wish america did this too :(
Are you kidding? America goes nuts when the First Lady merely suggests that kids should eat better and get more exercise. No way would they get rid of anyone for being fat--we can't even get near nutrition.
 

Coolshark

New member
Jul 15, 2012
93
0
0
If this literally true, I'm literally disgusted.

You can use him as a floatation device! Or a cushion! You fools!
 

Yan007

New member
Jan 31, 2011
262
0
0
Coolshark said:
If this literally true, I'm literally disgusted.

You can use him as a floatation device! Or a cushion! You fools!
I will agree with you because "Kurenai Otoya". For those of you who don't know, get some of him on youtube. Best rider ever.
 

Mr.Mattress

Level 2 Lumberjack
Jul 17, 2009
3,645
0
0
Deshara said:
No they aren't. The legal slavery provided us by frequently unpaid migrant workers is the reason our food is so cheap-- if we actually had to pay and provide worker's rights for the people harvesting our crops, we'd be charged way more for food and would have to eat less of it.
So... huh, actually, maybe slave labor is costing us...
Actually, we already have things in place that make food cheap: For Example, many farmers are paid by the government to not farm. There's a limit on the amount of food all farmers combined can grow, with excess food being destroyed. Sure, cheap illegal labor helps the costs, but costs are already set with our weird farming laws. At most, the cheap labor can only take off a dollar for costs. Plus, farmers shouldn't want their food to be so cheap they can't afford to live in their homes.
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
Meatspinner said:
Quoting for clarity
Mr Buitenhuis and his wife, Marthie, moved from South Africa to Christchurch in 2007. At the time, the chef weighed 160kg.
Funny how it wasn't an issue until now
Indeed, read this story in the paper, they say he was fatter when he came in and had actually lost some pounds there.
 

HoneyVision

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2013
314
7
23
Zachary Amaranth said:
HoneyVision said:
Never EVER misuse the word "desire".
Thankfully, I didn't. You, however, misused "fault," which was the point in the first place.
You did. And beyond repair too. So congrats on that.
More importantly, the last thing I want is one more fat ass to have to pay tax for.
 

Doom-Slayer

Ooooh...I has custom title.
Jul 18, 2009
630
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
So apparently this is why universal healthcare is soo much better. If the state deems that your health is too much of a drain on their resources they just force you to move out. Instead of just being denied treatment you get denied treatment, your place to live, and your livelihood. Yes, much better.
Noncitizens/nonresidents dont get access to free healthcare. And they cant force residents to leave the country based on their health.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense as this decision has nothing to do with the type of NZs healthcare.

Offtopic: Our free healthcare is freaking amazing. Doctor visits for around $20 each time, and medications costing only $5 maximum per prescription(or free if you get a pharmacy card). And Im on a list to get my wisdom teeth pulled out, for free.
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
Pretty sure this has already been mentioned but in case it hasn't, New Zealand has something called ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation]) that basically provides free treatment for accident-related injuries to all residents, citizens and even temporary visitors.

I guess they deemed that fat people are too prone to having accidents :p

Obesity here in NZ is primarily a problem for populations of Maori and Pacific Island origins (Samoa, Tonga, etc) , who are natural very large (and strong) people and their weight can spiral out of control rather easily. The rest of the population is quite healthy :D
 

Whateveralot

New member
Oct 25, 2010
953
0
0
Lilani said:
Unless he's like 5'5" or less, 286 isn't that fat. I mean yeah it's still pretty obese, probably even classified as morbidly obese, but there are people in the US and the UK who are over 300 and even 500 pounds. So yeah he's pretty fat, but there are much fatter people. And I find it hard to believe there's nobody in New Zealand over 300 pounds.
Oh come on, it's increadibly obese and unhealthy to be 130kg if you're shorter than 7'8''.

It's the British people that pay for Healthcare through taxes (Healthcare is, up to a point, free in the UK). This means that the ones who payed taxes all their lives get to use the privilege of free Healthcare. However, allowing a clearly unhealthy and overweight person into this system only costs money that he didn't pay a penny for during the first 30+ years of his life.
 

HoneyVision

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2013
314
7
23
Doom-Slayer said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
So apparently this is why universal healthcare is soo much better. If the state deems that your health is too much of a drain on their resources they just force you to move out. Instead of just being denied treatment you get denied treatment, your place to live, and your livelihood. Yes, much better.
Noncitizens/nonresidents dont get access to free healthcare. And they cant force residents to leave the country based on their health.

Your statement makes absolutely no sense as this decision has nothing to do with the type of NZs healthcare.

Offtopic: Our free healthcare is freaking amazing. Doctor visits for around $20 each time, and medications costing only $5 maximum per prescription(or free if you get a pharmacy card). And Im on a list to get my wisdom teeth pulled out, for free.
Not just that but kids get free dental cleanups AND free vaccinations. I strongly detest idiots here that complain about our high tax. How else do they think we receive those kinds of necessary benefits?
 

Angie7F

WiseGurl
Nov 11, 2011
1,704
0
0
Yuuki said:
Pretty sure this has already been mentioned but in case it hasn't, New Zealand has something called ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation]) that basically provides free treatment for accident-related injuries to all residents, citizens and even temporary visitors.

I guess they deemed that fat people are too prone to having accidents :p

Obesity here in NZ is primarily a problem for populations of Maori and Pacific Island origins (Samoa, Tonga, etc) , who are natural very large (and strong) people and their weight can spiral out of control rather easily. The rest of the population is quite healthy :D
This is what I first thought too.
My very limited knowledge of kiwis is that there are Samoan/ Tongan people who are very large, so them not allowing overweight people in was quite surprising.

But when you think of the health care, sure, I think it makes sense.
I mean, I would rather live in a country that takes care of people rather than lets everyone in, but doesnt cover for your expenses when you are sick.
 

TechNoFear

New member
Mar 22, 2009
446
0
0
ObsidianJones said:
An immigration spokesman said Mr Buitenhuis's application had been rejected because his obesity put him at "significant risk" of complications including diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.
Second to last paragraph of the link.

Now, I don't think it's that they don't like fat people, I think they just don't like fat people who try to apply for visas there.
You missed the bit where obesity also leads to joint problems....

And that he requires a knee replacement (>US$20k every 10-15 years), which would be paid for by New Zealand taxpayers, despite him being a citizen of South Africa.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Yan007 said:
For those wondering: Yes, the BMI index is bullshit. Bodyfat ratio is a much better indication. It is not an indication of health though, but over 20% you're lazy and under 8% you're either a bodybuilder or got an eating disorder.
I get the overall point you were making, but you need to be far more careful with statements like this given that bodyfat composition varies tremendously between men and women.

Men can technically still be healthy with as little as 2% bodyfat (although that's incredibly rare), while a woman would have serious health issues if her bodyfat were below 11% or so.

Stating it the way you did implies it's a blanket statement covering everyone when there is clearly a large sex related gap

Consider this chart for instance:
http://www.builtlean.com/2010/08/03/ideal-body-fat-percentage-chart/

It states 'average' bodyfat for a male as 14-17%, and for female as 21-24%
Even a female athlete is in the 14-20% range, while a male athlete, at 6-13% is given a range where the highest value is below the lowest for a woman.

It then goes on to say that for men, being under 8% bodyfat is unhealthy (which matches what you said), but for women, being below 21% bodyfat is unhealthy. Which is higher than the highest amount you stated in explicit reference to women.

Now, your statement matches the 'male' ideals pretty well, but is completely out of line with what would be healthy for a woman.
But you stated it as though it were a general fact that applied to everyone... (Not to mention the specific statements you made regarding women implied you considered any woman with an actual, healthy bodyfat composition to be overweight...)
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
TechNoFear said:
ObsidianJones said:
An immigration spokesman said Mr Buitenhuis's application had been rejected because his obesity put him at "significant risk" of complications including diabetes, hypertension and heart disease.
Second to last paragraph of the link.

Now, I don't think it's that they don't like fat people, I think they just don't like fat people who try to apply for visas there.
You missed the bit where obesity also leads to joint problems....

And that he requires a knee replacement (>US$20k every 10-15 years), which would be paid for by New Zealand taxpayers, despite him being a citizen of South Africa.
Umm, I'm not sure why you quoted me, to be honest. What you're saying is true, but you're quoting me out of context.

In my original quote, I was responding to Shpongled who asked why was it obvious that the chef was denied his visa due to his obesity. I quoted what we got with the article.

I'm not saying that's the only reason he was denied the visa, but I was talking about something direct. What you add, while true, doesn't enter in to the topic at hand.
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
I didn't want to go anyway.

*ba-bum-tish*

But still, that's harsh. Because of all of the attention, he'll probably get in within the near future.

But I'm not saying it's ok he's getting in anyway. There could be health problems that the tax will have to cover. And the Australian and New Zealand economy is ballocked enough (Here, a retailed game is = £20-35. There, it's about $100) but I suppose he'll either have to wait, or go on an insanely strict diet.
 

Proeliator

New member
Aug 22, 2012
91
0
0
Well, as any nerdfighter can tell ya,
You can be too poor to get into Canada. So no surprise there...
 

Unia

New member
Jan 15, 2010
349
0
0
So New Zealand is kicking out immigrants due to health problems, real or hypothetical. I must be naive even after life feeding me shit all this time, because to me that is plain wrong. 'course stuff works a bit differently in the EU area.
 

Jadak

New member
Nov 4, 2008
2,136
0
0
Unia said:
So New Zealand is kicking out immigrants due to health problems, real or hypothetical. I must be naive even after life feeding me shit all this time, because to me that is plain wrong. 'course stuff works a bit differently in the EU area.
'Immigrant' is defined as "A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country." That is not what this person is. He is not a citizen, he is a guest and they've decided he has overstayed his welcome.

Also, while 'kicked out' is correct in terms of what the end result would be if he doesn't leave on his own, it skims over the aspect where the truth is more along the lines of "not renewed". Main difference is merely one of perspective where instead of this being the case of a firmly rooted resident being uprooted, he had his visits 'expiry date' known when he got there, and staying longer was always subject to future approval.

Personally, I'm just surprised they even have to give reasons to not renew Visas.

In any case, I have no objections to this. Renewing a visa should follow general immigration policy, and nations don't generally allow immigration just for the fun of it, it's a cost vs benefit decision and they decided this man was more likely to be a cost. Oh well.