Two Americans emigrate to New Zealand from Colorado,
USA.
We talk about
our life in Nelson, New Zealand.
March 2008 | Blog home | May 2008
DATE |
Click on any blog entry to read it |
3 |
|
6 |
|
12 |
|
16 |
In case you didn't know, this year is an election year ... in New Zealand! |
18 |
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know, I know, we've been a bit absent from the radar for about a week. It's been a busy time, and not in the way we used to be busy back home with work, work, and more work. 
It started a few weekends ago when we hosted a poker party with 6 of my friends and their partners. It was in the works for about 5 months and it was with REAL money! Everyone had to buy in with $25 and most of us were novices. After about 1 hour Colin lost his shirt with reckless abandon and grande bravado, and then wife Kate followed shortly thereafter. Then with only 6 players the dynamics of the cards changed and I went from being a hanger on to kicking everyone's ass.
Soon Wayne left the table, followed by wife Sharon and they found a new home on the couch in front of the TV. It was down to Don, Chris, his wife Jade, and me. And then there were three: Don bowed out. I then proceeded to take Chris' massive accumulations to that point all over to my side of the table with awesome hands, and a few bluffs. Jade kept her chip stacks pretty high, and all in all I ended up the grand winner and took home $100 prize! Jade came second with a $60 prize, and Chris third at $40. It was great fun, and now I hear Chris is planning a follow up...is that a challenge??!!
A couple weekends ago we met for the first time the American in Auckland herself, Margaret and her husband Darin who came to Nelson over Easter for a holiday and hike in Abel Tasman. That's Margaret over to the left looking like the female version of Daniel Craig :) Darin is down below. It was great to meet them, I've been corresponding with her for a bit now, as we both landed in New Zealand around the same time and we live in different places and have different 
experiences. She was lucky enough to be here on a sunny Saturday and we spent the morning strolling the world famous Nelson Market.
Last weekend we had plans with people on Friday and Saturday night, and got caught up with the NCAA tourney in between -- YES we have games over here!! Best tourney outside NHL finals. I don't know where the weekend went.
Monday after work we met up with Andy Southwick, who you don't know at all but Don and I went to college with at University of Puget Sound many, many, MANY years ago now. You want to know how small this world is? You remember our friends John and Star in Colorado? Star works kinda as a consultant [trying to make the story as short as possible] and she was doing a job for her company up in Washington State where she happened to be consulting with Pete McComas who was a Sigma Nu with Don at UPS. Pete passed messages to Don through Star (not the secret love kind, just the hiya, how's it going kind), and then Pete also told Andy Southwick that he caught up with Don and that Don was moving to Nelson, New Zealand. WELLllllll, Andy actually lived in Nelson for 2 1/2 years a few years ago working as a urologist! So Andy reconnected with Don, and for the past month he's been here with his wife Megan and their two little girls visiting around New Zealand. They live in Salt Lake City where Andy practices. So we had dinner with Andy and Megan and it's been some 15 years since we've seen each other, but I think, not being modest here, that we all don't look a day older than we were those many years ago!
Tuesday was the final weekly cycling race for Don and Wayne, so I suggested to Sharon that we get together for a glass of wine and a chat while the boys raced. Well, that turned into Sharon and Angela polishing off a couple bottles of wine and not doing any work on preparing the BBQ by the time Don and Wayne got home. With ZERO bottles of wine remaining in the house by that point, the boys were not happy about doing all that cycling, and then coming home to NO wine and NO food and blah blah. Like Sharon and I felt badly about that, NOT. Before I knew it, Don took matters into his own hands and ran down to the store for a fresh bottle and some licorice, his new love. It was a bit of a late night.
Finally, yesterday/Wednesday, we looked at each other on the way to work and said, 'let's stay home tonight and do NOTHING!'
So, bottom line is, the blog has suffered through all of our social adventures, and most likely work has suffered as well since it really is on the bottom of the priority list. To give you a bit of a 'we're sorry,' (altho honestly, it's mostly me these days, with Don doing a good cheerleader imitation), here's a cute picture of Livvy.
I read about this story on CNN.com (that is where the excerpt is from, to give credit). Many of you may have heard this already. This is what I mean when I say to people that corporations rule America and it is a total clusterf**k for average people. You think you run your own life, and then something like this happens. I encourage anyone and everyone to boycot Walmart--I've not shopped there for years now.
I'm getting deja vu that I've already said this, but it's worth repeating: just remember another disgusting fact that when Bush took office ('took' being the operative word) in 2000, oil prices were about $30 a barrel. Today oil is $106 a barrel. Doesn't take a rocket scientist, does it.
Congress is so in the pockets of the money-grubbing corporate slags. It's good to live in one of many countries where that trend hasn't hit (yet, at least). In New Zealand we can still see the difference between government for the people and corporate rule. All of this is one of the main reasons we moved to New Zealand. America has its good points for sure, but corporate rule is deep in the minus column.
Edited for brevity
Debbie Shank [a 52-year-old mother of three] suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home. It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.
Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan. Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.
The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.
The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money. "We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.
The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.
"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.
Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."
The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid. Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.
"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.
Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back. Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.
Only a few hours after I posted this, my father in law emailed me to say he just saw on CNN.com that the woman was allowed to keep her money. Gee, thanks Walmart.
"Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter. "We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation."
I'm sure public pressure did the trick, and even though Walmart may be skating by this time, this doesn't change my opinion of them AT ALL. Frankly, I am amazed that they bowed to the pressure, Walmart is not known for doing that (remember their campaign to avoid unionised employees?).
But this is the crux of it:
Wal-Mart said in a letter to Jim Shank [woman's husband] that it is modifying its health care plan to allow "more discretion" in individual cases.
Well isn't that the bottom line after all? Shouldn't extreme cases be handled on an individual basis? Gee, they shoulda had it this way all along, and they coulda done something about all of this BEFORE it nearly went to the Supreme Court. But of course, back then it wasn't highlighed on CNN.com.
I've mentioned a few times before about the odd driving differences in the rules here in New Zealand. If you are planning to travel here, it is definitely something to be aware of. Not only will you have to learn to drive (and quickly!) on the left side of the road, but you may find several of the 'give way' rules tricky and scary. There are two that are particularly noteworthy.
First, when you are making a left turn, you are required to yield to any oncoming traffic that is turning right. This is the equivalent in the United States of waiting to make a right hand turn if someone opposite is ready to turn left into the same lane. The person making (in NZ) the left hand turn must yield the right of way unless you are in an intersection with 4 lanes and a car in the lane to the right of you is going through on the straight-through lane--then the opposite car cannot turn, obviously, and you are free to make your left turn.
This rule is fairly new in New Zealand, and it's pretty scary to follow at first. In fact, it's pretty scary to follow all the time. I'm not sure why it changed. I was in this situation just today and had a thought about why it's so scary. I was in the left lane, waiting to turn left in a two-lane stretch of road. With the onus on the person in my position required to yield, not only do I have to be aware of the driver opposite me who wants to turn into my lane, but I have to be aware of any drivers to my right who are driving straight through the intersection. If there is a driver on my right going straight, then I can make my left hand turn legally. I only have to yield if there is no car going through.
So I'm driving up to the intersection today and I see a car opposite me wanting to make the right turn. I slow down and yield, but it occurs to me that I also have to look in my right rear view mirror to see if any cars are going through the intersection, and I might also have to turn and look into the blind spot. This is a lot of work for a driver in an intersection! If the situation was reversed (as it is in the States), the car making the right hand turn into the opposite lane would be able to see both oncoming cars by looking straight ahead--me trying to turn left, and the oncoming car going straight through the intersection--and he would easily be able to give way without checking mirrors or turning around. Seems more safe, doesn't it? The driver turning left has to watch too many places to make his/her turn.
Not only does the give way rule apply in this manner, but it applies when you are turning into and out of a carpark. Look at these diagrams -- doesn't it look odd? In both instances, the vehicle turning OUT OF the carpark has the right of way. WHY? Because the give way rule means you always yield to the car on your right in an uncontrolled intersection (one without signs or lights).
Still looks pretty hazardous to me, what if a car is coming up behind the blue car and decides to pass to go straight on the blue car's left side? What if the red truck/car pulls out, 
BOOM CRASH BANG. Bizarre. But it's the rule. Not sure I've followed this one myself, however!
The second major issue about driving in New Zealand that is different from America is that you cannot turn left on red lights. There is no stopping, looking, then 'left turn on red' as there is in the States 'right turn on red.' You have to stop everywhere and wait for the green light.
It's really important that if you're travelling here, you understand these two particular rules because they will catch you off guard BIG TIME, especially if you go to turn left at an intersection and a car opposite comes right at you turning into your lane first. I don't see why they don't have more accidents with this rule given all the tourists.
But I wouldn't expect anyone to know that anyway, because our election season hasn't even begun yet. And the election is in October!
I remember this time last year when everyone in the States was gearing up for election season to begin there. It may have started even earlier. But here, there's the occasional news story about 'election year decisions' that may have an impact in October, but that's pretty much it. I've not seen any campaigning, any signage, any commercials. Why is that?
Quite simply, because the campaign isn't allowed by law to begin yet. Look at this chart below. You will see that the prime minister announces the schedule for the election, but there is only a maximum of 34 days allowed between the time that Parliament is dissolved to polling day. That doesn't leave a lot of time for campaigning!
To give you an idea, here is the condensed version of the 2005 election schedule:
Don and I didn't really think much about this shorter-than-we're-used-to schedule because we only tuned in around July last time to monitor the race as we initiated our plans to move. By that time the election had sort of started and so hearing the now so familiar nasty campaigning was nothing new to us. But being here this time, it's sooooo different. We hear none of it now, and all anyone knows is that the next general election is scheduled to take place no later than 15 November 2008. Next time around, we'll be eligible to vote, but not this time as you have to be a citizen.
For more information on the form of government in New Zealand, take a look at my pages on politics, starting with the page on the current system in New Zealand.
I have been tracking the ongoing progress of the use of this HPV vaccination in the States and found this article interesting as means of comparison. Now you know how it's going here, and how public opinion is leaning. And a jab is a vaccination : )
New Zealand Herald
April 14, 2008, by Martin Johnston
The Government is said to be on the point of announcing a programme of mass-vaccination of 11-year-old girls against a sexually-transmitted virus linked to cervical cancers.
"It is expected, in the very near future, that a universal programme for 11-year-old girls will be announced," says vaccine expert Dr Nikki Turner in a report for Auckland University's Immunisation Advisory Centre, of which she is director. "The 11-year-old event is likely to be delivered by general practice and public health services within schools." Dr Turner is close to the Ministry of Health - her centre is contracted to it and she sits on the ministry's pandemic influenza committee - but she is not a ministry employee. "We're just waiting to hear [about the vaccine]," she told the Herald.
The previous president of the Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Dr Kenneth Clark, said an announcement was widely expected soon. "The proposals and the introduction of the vaccine are most welcome. Inevitably we would have preferred that it happened earlier."
Each year, cervical cancer is diagnosed in about 180 women and kills around 60. Health Minister David Cunliffe was unavailable to comment and his spokeswoman said she was unable to confirm when an announcement would be made regarding human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination.
The ministry is negotiating with GlaxoSmithKline and CSL, which each supply a vaccine that targets strains of HPV associated with 70 per cent of cervical cancers.
Patients who wish to have CSL's Gardasil vaccine pay around $450 to receive the course of three injections.
The ministry had set a high priority on funding of HPV vaccination from next February, but it is understood the aim may now be to start making it available as early as September.
It has previously recommended vaccinating girls from the age of 11 or 13, with a catch-up for older girls up to 15, but the starting age was to be based on "acceptability" and a survey of parental attitudes was planned.
Dr Turner said parental concerns had been expressed that giving the vaccine to adolescents might promote promiscuity or earlier sexual activity but there was no evidence for this. "There is some evidence that education interventions can improve the level of acceptability in undecided parents. A UK study ... reported that 81 per cent of parents would probably, or definitely, have their child vaccinated."
First off, the movie was brilliant, just brilliant. To focus the documentary on the people who actually HAVE medical insurance and still have suffered as if they don't have coverage, just brilliant. Having worked at (and co-founded) a nonprofit organisation that provided financial aid to ill people both with and without insurance, I have experienced second-hand the financial devastation wrought by a health crisis. Sometimes it was too tragic for words and I'd just cry!
My presentations to raise money or to physicians and my grant proposals would always include the whole spiel of: yes, it's horrible if you don't have health insurance, but it is also extremely difficult if you do have health insurance. It sucks all the way around, frankly. We'd launch into case studies about how much the out-of-pocket expenses were for our clients with and without insurance. It was standard fare, and everyone we talked to was familiar with the same notion, working in the medical field. Having insurance doesn't mean you're safe.
What 'Sicko" made me realise is that after living here for 2 years, my paradigm has shifted (how Covey-esque!). I am no longer used to dealing with insurance for any medical care, I just expect things to be taken care of under the country's socialised system. And what a relief!!
If you saw 'Sicko,' New Zealand falls into those systems he described, Canada, U.K., France, etc, although there is a secondary insurance system that speeds up care, but doesn't provide care (or make medical decisions). I've already talked at length about the health care system here and how it differs from the US in prior blogs.
But my paradigm shift has taken place because I used to think that we should have to pay for health care wherever we went, and now I don't think we should have to pay at all, anywhere. Urgent and preventative care, at the LEAST, should be a human right. And based on Moore's information, if he's right with his statistical information, only the U.S. lags behind in the western world in seeing this as a human right. And even worse, I think that only Americans see this as the normal way, the right way. That capitalism is the means by which medical care should be delivered. It's a free market! Get government out of our lives! They don't know any different, and I didn't either.
After we watched the movie, Don and I launched into a discussion, and even he kept saying that "I expect to pay for the service, if I go to another country and get ill, I should pay for it." And my immediate thought was that is how Americans are trained to think, it seems clear the rest of the world doesn't think that way!!
For any doubters of socialised medicine, I can tell you several people I've talked to here who emigrated from the U.K. rave about the NHS, their National Health Service. When the yahoos at Fox and all those conservative bullies try to say that socialised medicine is for the birds and that countries who have such systems hate it, they are WRONG. Flat wrong. Everyone I talk to thinks America has the most absurd system in the world, just as those people interviewed in Moore's movie said.
The message I got from the movie: it doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, have health insurance or not, everyone who isn't a multi-millionaire is constantly at risk of losing everything if they become ill or go through a medical crisis.
Who wants to live with that fear?? Certainly not me, and I cannot imagine moving to the States as long as the current system is in place. Why would I give up the security of the system I have now, a system that treats everyone equally, for the greedy, money-driven system in America? I know not everyone is keen on it and I'm generalising a bit, but you know the people I'm talking about (Republicans and rich people who don't want to pay more taxes). If more people were up in arms, things would change. Maybe now that the insurers are charging percentages for some of the most expensive prescriptions, rather than copays, people will finally revolt.
If there is one thing that absolutely has to change in the United States of America, is to move away from the corporate control of healthcare. For pete's sake, corporations own pretty much everything else, can't that satisfy them enough? Get out of health care, get out of ruining people's lives, be done with it!
This year I vote on one issue alone, one single issue (lucky for me the person I'm voting for on this one issue ALSO wants to get out of Iraq, phew!). I never vote on one issue, but I can't help myself, it's sooooooooo important. And I can't imagine it going on any longer the way it is right now. My candidate is going to change the health care system, I know it.
Another thought sparked by the movie was what people who live with socialised medicine do when they travel. In America if you have health insurance, you carry it with you when you travel. That isn't the case in New Zealand, and so travel insurance exists. We always thought it was a scam, but they wrap into one policy medical insurance coverage (including urgent extraction from the country if necessary!), loss of property, and travelling emergencies or cancellations. I've derided this system, thinking kiwis insure themselves silly sometimes, but I hadn't thought about it in terms of medical coverage overseas.
Since we are taking our first trip off the island since we moved here, I investigated said insurance. We would need to pay for services in some countries if a medical need arises. If I travel to the States, you bet I'd pay a bundle for an emergency room visit. I investigated my options and yesterday purchased a policy for our Australia trip.
You'll find this interesting, but probably not surprising:
For 2 adults aged 21-70 for 9 days travelling to:
Australia/South Pacific
Australia, New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanuatu, Samoa, American Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Tahiti, Norfolk Island, Bali, Lombok & Niue = $72NZ
World
World for all destinations not covered by the Australia and South Pacific plan and where the SuperWorld policy is not compulsory = $166NZ
SuperWorld
SuperWorld compulsory for the United States of America (including Alaska and Hawaii), Canada, Japan and Antarctica, although SuperWorld is not compulsory for stopovers only in these areas of 5 days or less in total over your journey = $198NZ
So bottom line? If it came to medical care, I'd rather live here or in Europe than in the United States. It's moral, it's about values, I can't watch Americans continue to be treated like garbage all for the sake of making money, it's thoroughly disgusting. I'm very excited to cast my vote this year, and for the first time in a long time I'm hopeful.
We're on holiday until May ... talk at you when we're back from Australia, lots of good stuff to share then.
Anxious to have any comments, as always, but we'll share them when we return.
Click here for a link to Dennis' blog.
