New Zealand Immigration does not allow Fat People into their Country because of Health Care Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2013

Week in Review

As Obamacare moves closer to full implementation the mass of personal data the government will collect on us is concerning many.  Our medical files will have everything from our Social Security numbers to comments that we may drink too much.  But what harm can come from government having a wealth of private information about us?  It’s not like anyone has ever hacked into a government computer (the Chinese).  Or a branch of government ever violated our Constitutional rights (the IRS).  So really, now, how could a government-run health care system tracking our personal data harm us (see Chef told he’s too fat to live in New Zealand posted 7/27/2013 on CBC News)?

A South African chef has been told by authorities in New Zealand that’s he’s too fat to be permitted to live in the country…

…immigration officials told him he did not have “an acceptable standard of health” and his work visa would not be renewed, Fairfax NZ News reported.

At 5’8″ tall, Albert Buitenhuis has a body mass index of more than 40, which lands him in the medically obese territory.

An immigration spokesman said all applicants with a body mass index of more than 35 are investigated.

The spokesman said the chef had been rejected because his obesity put him at “significant risk” of health complications such as heart disease, diabetes, some cancers and hypertension.

He added that the department’s medical assessors have to consider to “what extent there might be indications of future high-cost and high-need demand for health services…”

New Zealand has the third highest obesity rate among developed countries, behind the United States and Mexico, according to a 2012 report released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Interesting.  Obamacare may track our weight to determine how much to charge us for our Obamacare premium.  But they are doing nothing to secure our border.  Allowing God knows how many obese Mexicans into the country.  Who are as obese as we are.  And are at risk of heart disease, diabetes, some cancers and hypertension.  Requiring more costly Obamacare resources.  So they will punish us for our obesity.  But not the Mexicans entering the country illegally.  For they are sacrosanct.  We can’t even ask them for an ID when they try to vote.  But you know that you and I will have to pay an obesity tax under Obamacare.

New Zealand has a mixed health care system.  It was once a national system.  But they have since mixed in a few private sector elements.  To control the out-of-control costs of national health care.  And because the government is footing a portion of the health care bill the government can do pretty much whatever they want when it comes to any health care issue.  In this case immigration is a health care issue.  Because immigrants are people.  And people eventually require health care.

This is the frightening part about Obamacare.  Because it lets the government punish our behavior if they choose.  Or our thoughts.  Overweight?  That’ll cost you.  Especially if you’re an enemy of the state.  Like those Tea Party groups harassed by the IRS.  Something that couldn’t happen if we kept our health care in the private sector.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Government Officials want Businesses to do their Social Duty after making it so Difficult for them to Earn a Profit

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2013

Week in Review

You know a country is intervening too much into the private sector economy when they start saying things like this (see Hiring UK workers ‘more important’ than profit, Matthew Hancock indicates by Peter Dominiczak posted 7/26/2013 on The Telegraph).

Mr Hancock, the business and skills minister, has said that companies have a “social duty” to employ young British workers rather than better-qualified immigrants.

He said that employers should be prepared to invest in training British staff rather than simply looking for “pure profit”.

“During the last boom there was a lot of recruitment from abroad and, in fact, youth unemployment went up, even during the boom.

“This is about a change of culture. I’m arguing that it is companies’ social responsibility, it is their social duty, to look at employing locally first.

“That may mean that they have to do more training. It may mean more training in hard skills, in specific skills. Or it may mean training in the wherewithal, the character you need in order to hold down a job.

Of course, the question that gets begged to ask is this.  Why do the immigrants have better training in hard skills, have better training in specific skills and have the character to hold down a job?  Why is it that the British youth is not as employable as these immigrants?  Is it the British educational system?  What exactly are these other countries doing better than Britain that their people are better qualified for these jobs?  Or is it that these immigrants are just older and more responsible and desperate for work?  As there is no generous welfare state in their country to support them in their unemployment?  Has the government created an environment where businesses have to turn to better-qualified immigrants?

If Mr. Hancock thinks business should hire people based on social duty instead of what’s best for the bottom line then why doesn’t he show these businesses how it’s done.  Let him create a business that hires based on social duty instead of profit.  Of course, without profit it will require Mr. Hancock to use more and more of his personal funds to finance business operations.  Such as paying to train those unqualified workers.  But I’m guessing he won’t do that.  Because he’s a government official.  And will only risk the taxpayers’ money.  Force businesses to take greater risk with their money (by operating at a lower profit level due to higher taxes and regulatory costs).  But he won’t risk his money.  No.  Anything but that.  But he’s perfectly okay with everyone else risking theirs.

Perhaps this is the reason why these immigrants are better qualified for these jobs.  People in government managing the private sector economy who don’t know the first thing about business.  But think they do.  And have no idea of just how ignorant they are.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Elderly Patients suffer Poor Care and Neglect in the NHS as Hospital Staff finds them too Burdensome

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2013

Week in Review

One of the big problems with national health care is old people.  They cost a lot.  And consume a lot of the limited resources available.  Especially with their repeat hospital stays.  Becoming too great a burden for some hospital personnel.  Leading to poor care.  And neglect.  As this family in Wales experienced (see NHS neglect: Calls for inquiry after woman’s death by India Pollock posted 7/25/2013 on BBC News Wales).

“It was absolutely appalling,” a relative said. “Quite often I’d go in to visit her and I would find that she had been left nil by mouth for several days until she was weak and wasn’t able to lift a glass of water to her mouth, she was dehydrated.”

Another family member said: “We sat by her bedside until her tongue swelled up and cracked and her lips split open for want of hydration.

“She became delirious at first, then barely conscious, almost coma-like…”

The health board said it would conduct a Protection of Vulnerable Adults (Pova) investigation.

However, the board did not contact the family for six months. It apologised and said that lessons had been learnt but no Pova proceedings took place.

When the woman was readmitted in 2012, relatives said they discovered the same problems.

They reported their concerns to social services which is when they learnt that a Pova investigation had not actually taken place.

Pova proceedings were then used and a number of allegations were proved.

The health board admitted giving unnecessary sedation and failing to administer prescribed medication.

The board also failed to care for the woman’s amputated leg.

A family member added: “We explained how her prosthesis could be taken off and showed them the bag of clean amputation socks that we’d taken in for her.

“We also gave them oils to treat her leg to ensure it didn’t become inflamed. We explained it all to the staff.

“When I complained that she was having unnecessary sedation, they said it was because she was screaming at night. When I asked her why she was screaming at night, she told me that they hadn’t taken her leg off in the two weeks that she’d been there.

“A member of staff pulled back the bedclothes and sat by the side of her bed and took her leg off with me, and took off the urine sodden socks that had been left on her amputation for two weeks and he turned away in disgust, holding the urine sodden socks at arms’ length.”

Recommendations were put in place, but the family said there were similar issues when the woman was admitted to Neath Port Talbot hospital in August 2012.

Then she was transferred to the Princess of Wales Hospital, where she died in November.

The family said they were told by staff that they were stopping her medication as she was dying of pneumonia.

However, a post mortem examination was carried out and the coroner’s report said her lungs were free of chronic disease, and that she died of a heart attack…

Peter Tyndall, the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales, said: “It’s absolutely tragic for the individual and for the family, and I think although there are lots of people who have very good experiences of the NHS in Wales, there are still too many cases of this kind occurring.”

He said there had been a 30% increase in complaints about the NHS in Wales in a year.

This is our future.  What we can expect under Obamacare.  As the government moves us closer and closer to national health care.  Poor care.  Neglect.  And an unfeeling bureaucracy.  Who will look at our loved ones with contempt.  Annoyed by their excessive health care needs.  Looking for any opportunity to withhold their medications so they just hurry up and die.  So they can go and treat less burdensome patients.

You won’t find the phrase ‘death panel’ in Obamacare.  Just as you won’t find them in the NHS.  But they have one.  It’s called the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient.  A death panel by another name.  Which lets patients supposedly die with dignity.  After consulting with the patient’s family.  But that didn’t happen with this patient in Wales.  And, sadly, it’s not an isolated incident.

For those of you who wanted Obamacare, for those of you who want national health care, this is what you have to look forward too.  It’s not utopia.  It’s trying to do more with less.  Which is just a recipe for poor care and neglect.  For the only way to cut costs so you can provide health care to more people is by giving everybody a less costly and a lower quality level of care.  It’s simply math.  The more people you treat the less each person gets.  And things like this become a little too common in the NHS.  As they will under Obamacare.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

High-Speed Train crashes in Spain because things moving at High Speeds on the Ground can be Very Dangerous

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2013

Week in Review

Trains are heavy.  Getting a train moving is one thing.  But getting it to stop is another.  Because heavy things moving fast have a lot of kinetic energy.  The energy of something in motion.  In classical mechanics we calculate the kinetic energy by multiplying one half of the mass times the velocity squared.  That last part is really important.  The velocity part.  For as the speed increases the kinetic energy increases by a far greater amount.  For example, a train increasing speed from 30 kilometers per hour (18 mph) to 190 kilometers per hour (114 mph) increases its speed by 533%.  But because we square the velocity the kinetic energy increases by 3,911%.   Making high-speed rail more dangerous than regular rail.  Because of the great amounts of kinetic energy involved.

Airplanes are very heavy.  They travel at great speeds.  And have great amounts of kinetic energy.  Which is why plane crashes or so horrific.  Anything with that amount of kinetic energy suddenly stopping dissipates that energy in great heat, noise and the explosion of solid parts.  But plane crashes, thankfully, are rare.  For when they are travelling at those great speeds they’re up in the air thousands of feet (or more) away from anything they can hit.  And if there is a malfunction they can fall safely though the sky (with enough altitude) until the pilots can recover the aircraft.  For airplanes have the best friend to high speed objects.  A lot of empty space all around them.  Not so with high-speed rail (see Driver in custody after 80 killed in Spain train crash by Teresa Medrano and Tracy Rucinski posted 7/25/2013 on Reuters).

The driver of a Spanish train that derailed, killing at least 80 people, was under police guard in hospital on Thursday after the dramatic accident which an official source said was caused by excessive speed.

The eight-carriage train came off the tracks, hit a wall and caught fire just outside the pilgrimage destination Santiago de Compostela in northwestern Spain on Wednesday night. It was one of Europe’s worst rail disasters…

Video footage from a security camera showed the train, with 247 people on board, hurtling into a concrete wall at the side of the track as carriages jack-knifed and the engine overturned…

El Pais newspaper said the driver told the railway station by radio after being trapped in his cabin that the train entered the bend at 190 kilometers per hour (120 mph). An official source said the speed limit on that stretch of twin track, laid in 2011, was 80 kph…

Investigators were trying to find out why the train was going so fast and why security devices to keep speed within permitted limits had not slowed the train…

Spain’s rail safety record is better than the European average, ranking 18th out of 27 countries in terms of railway deaths per kilometers traveled, the European Railway Agency said. There were 218 train accidents in Spain between 2008-2011, well below the EU average of 426 for the same period.

There are no rails to derail from in the air.  And no concrete walls to crash into.  Air travel requires no infrastructure between terminal points.  High-speed rail travel requires a very expensive, a very precise and a highly maintained infrastructure between terminal points.  As well as precise controls to keep the train from exceeding safe speeds.  Planes do, too.  But when you have thousands of feet of nothingness all around you there is time to make adjustments before something catastrophic happens.  Like derailing when speeding through a curve too fast.

Air travel is safer than high-speed rail travel.  Which is why when a plane crashes it’s big news.  Because it happens so rarely these days.  Thanks to good aircraft designs.  Good pilots.  And having thousands of feet of nothingness all around you when flying at speeds close to 950 kph (570 mph).  Unlike having a concrete wall just a few feet away from a train traveling at high speeds.

High-speed rail may work in France and Japan.  The only two rail lines to pay for themselves are in these countries.  But every other passenger rail line in the world needs a government subsidy.  Because the costs of a rail infrastructure are just so great.  Making high-speed rail more of a source of union jobs than an efficient means of transportation.  Which is why they are a fixture in countries with liberal governments.  Who subsidize the high cost of these union jobs with taxpayer money.  In exchange for votes in the next election.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The British have a New Heir to the Throne and we in America say God Save the King

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2013

Week in Review

Before the Americans declared their independence from Great Britain they tried to reconcile their differences with Great Britain.  For many believed Great Britain had the greatest form of government in the world.  A constitutional monarchy.  The form of government that vaulted the British Empire into a superpower.  And gave her people more rights and liberties than any nation in the world.

The Americans, rather, the British Americans, were proud to be British.  And would have remained proud members of the British Crown had it not been for the immense cost of the Seven Years’ War.  That the Parliament tried to pay for by taxing the American colonists.  For all the British Crown did to protect the Americans from the French and their Indian allies.  Not asking for much, really.  But the British taxpayers in Great Britain had representation in Parliament.  And had a say in that taxation.  But the British living in North America were not given that British right.  Which was the source of all the friction between the British Americans and Great Britain.  And what brought them to war.

Some of the fighting in the American Revolutionary War was brutal.  But the worst of it was between Patriot and Loyalist.  American against American.  In the civil war that raged in the South.  Which is why the United States and Great Britain resumed relations following the war.  There had plenty of issues but the post-war relationship was far better than any other nation that fought a civil war.  Why?  Because there is a Special Relationship between the British and the Americans.  We come from the same stock.  We share the same values.  And traditions.  The countries around the world that were once part of the British Empire are some of the most advanced nations in the world.  And their people have some of the greatest rights and liberties in the world today.  All because of our British past.

We may never bow to British Royalty again.  Because of our history.  But we can embrace the Royal Family.  Just as the British do.  For it is their tradition.  And a deep part of their glorious history.  As it is ours.  So we welcome the future king into the world.  We wish the best for him and the Royal Family.  And the British people.  Joining them in spirit when they shout God Save the King (see America’s embrace of the Royal Family demonstrates the enduring strength of the Special Relationship by Nile Gardiner posted 7/23/2013 on The Telegraph).

Despite the lukewarm and often insulting approach of the Obama administration towards Britain over the past four and a half years, the Special Relationship between the United States and Great Britain remains extraordinarily strong in terms of defence, intelligence, cultural and trade ties, and is uniquely important to the American people. No other nation in the world holds a place in American hearts as special as Great Britain. And Americans hold an overwhelmingly positive view of the British Royal Family. The most recent poll conducted in the United States on the British Monarchy – a CBS/New York Times poll back in April 2011 – showed that 71 percent of Americans believe the Royal family “is a good thing” for the British people, with only 15 percent against. In the same poll, the Queen held a 61 percent approval rating, at the time about 15 points higher than that of the US president.

There are defeatists who argue that Britain hardly matters anymore to the world’s superpower, and that the UK can only maintain influence in Washington through the lens of the EU. The huge US interest today in events thousands of miles away in London, and the tremendous support for the Royal Family suggests that the Special Relationship is far from dead. With good reason Americans admire the British for their uncompromising defence of tradition, their warrior spirit, and their willingness to uphold national sovereignty.

Britain matters.  And if the Eurozone collapsed as well as the EU they will matter more. Thanks to Margaret Thatcher.  Who reversed their slide into Socialism.  Unlike other European nations.  And of late, the United States.  Sadly.

President Obama insults our greatest friend and ally because Britain bucks the socializing of Europe.  Britain is often the lone rational voice in the European Parliament.  Currently that voice belongs to Daniel Hannan.  Who knows the history of Britain.  The United States.  And our Special Relationship.  Which is conservative.  Not liberal.  Which is why the Special Relationship is anathema to a liberal like President Obama.

God save the future king.  The queen.  The United States of America.  And our Special Relationship.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,