Australia to stop welfare payments for parents who dont vacinnate their kids

Tzardine

Came across this story.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0413/693696-australia/

I think it's a great idea. How irresponsible can a person be to not vaccinate their children. Usually the tinfoil hat brigade.

darkpagandeath

Mr Abbott said yesterday only strict religious or medical reasons for non-vaccination would be accepted.

So it's ok if an Old book tells you it's bad.

Ghost Buster

Why is a religious reason for not vaccinating your kids acceptable!

Realt Dearg Sec

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Why is a religious reason for not vaccinating your kids acceptable!

Because God will take care of those ones. Medical science is only necessary for heathen spawn.

Friend of mine has declined all the shots for his daughter.

His reasons are all based on things he read on the www. Real conspiracy theory stuff about Governments in bed with pharma companies to create scares and so on. I don't get into it, we'd only argue and of course it is his prerogative.

In time I may be circumspect about sending a child around to play with his, mind you.

kylith

I wouldn't stop welfare payments, but I would deny access to schools and crèches.

It just takes complying with the state to a whole new level, Australia already has (I believe) compulsory voting in elections.

Red Kev

Thought it was a good, progressive idea myself until the religious exemptions were mentioned. Idiotic.

Realt Dearg Sec

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It just takes complying with the state to a whole new level, Australia already has (I believe) compulsory voting in elections.

Complying with the state for the health and safety of all children including ones unable to receive vaccines whose health us compromised by the caprices of a fringe of conspiracy nuts and religious lunatics. That shouldn't be indulged by any state.

cheekypup

Red Kev wrote: »

Thought it was a good, progressive idea myself until the religious exemptions were mentioned. Idiotic.

not really, their respective church can pay for the childs healthcare at no cost to the state or the taxpayer.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I'm all for vaccinations but I think this may be a step too far.

Realt Dearg Sec

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Complying with the state for the health and safety of all children including ones unable to receive vaccines whose health us compromised by the caprices of a fringe of conspiracy nuts and religious lunatics. That shouldn't be indulged by any state.

I do agree with the idea of vaccination though as without it the risks of an outbreak of a "controlled" disease could be deadly to an individual who missed out for any reason as well as those who's parents declined to protect them.

I wonder how long it will be until governments start "fining" people for lifestyle related illnesses, by which mean the individuals have to pay a larger portion of the medical bill for treatment for a smoking related disease for example.

Gatling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder how long it will be until governments start "fining" people for lifestyle related illnesses, by which mean the individuals have to pay a larger portion of the medical bill for treatment for a smoking related disease for example.

Why not when you think about it .
Person smokes 40 a day and heap of pints and fatty foods.
there piss poor choices lead to meddical conditions that are fairly costly to treat in the long run .
and yet they end up paying next to nothing

kylith

kylith wrote: »

I wouldn't stop welfare payments, but I would deny access to schools and crèches.

Is that not punishing the child for the decision by the parents?

One eyed Jack

Sounds to me like it's simply business as usual then. The funny thing is, it's mostly parents that don't need the tax rebates or the welfare payments are the people who are declining getting their children vaccinated, the new agey hippy lefty types -


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/22/anti-vaccine-mothers-explain-measles-backlash

(just one example of many I've come across, I know there was a scientist in NZ too who refused to vaccinate his children, one nearly died, but I can't find a link now)


But I have to agree that vilifying these parents, does absolutely no good. They only dig their heels in further -


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2015/02/02/vilifying-parents-who-dont-vaccinate-their-kids-is-counterproductive/


It's less about holy books, and more to do with the fact that these people simply don't care about anyone else but themselves and their 'rights'. "Responsibility" is a dirty word for leftie nutbars.

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that not punishing the child for the decision by the parents?

Not as much as withholding money needed for food, clothing, etc.

Also as One Eyed Jack says above, the idiots who don't vaccinate are less likely to be receiving welfare.

The Backwards Man

kylith wrote: »

I wouldn't stop welfare payments, but I would deny access to schools and crèches.

Anyone who thinks vaccination is bad is likely to have similar theories about educational institutions so that might not be much of a deterrent.

shruikan2553

Not allowing access to schools would probably be better although as the backwards man said, they would probably be the kind of nut jobs who think that the schools are putting chemtrails into the air so they become liberal or whatever.

kunst nugget

Gatling wrote: »

Why not when you think about it .
Person smokes 40 a day and heap of pints and fatty foods.
there piss poor choices lead to meddical conditions that are fairly costly to treat in the long run .
and yet they end up paying next to nothing

The only one of them not heavily taxed is fatty food. If you smoke fags, I think about 80% of it goes to revenue so in essence you are funding your future health care when your lungs inevitably turn to sh¡te.

suicide_circus

http://bigamericannews.com/2015/03/27/obama-orders-homosexual-chemtrail-missions-over-indiana-day-after-religious-freedom-bill-passed/

kylith

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Anyone who thinks vaccination is bad is likely to have similar theories about educational institutions so that might not be much of a deterrent.

Yeah, but then you can jail/fine them for failing to educate their children, OR they can enjoy the financial and time-heavy burden of private/home schooling.

LadyAthame

kylith wrote: »

Not as much as withholding money needed for food, clothing, etc.

Also as One Eyed Jack says above, the idiots who don't vaccinate are less likely to be receiving welfare.

I agree with witholding it and I will tell you why.

I was born severly underweight but otherwise a healthy full term baby. I was 1.5lbs which is under the 3lb weight requirement for the 5 in 1 vaccine. My parents were told the risk was too great for such a small baby and as soon as I reached the weight requirement I should get it immediately. But I didn't gain weight particularly fast. A few weeks later I got whooping cough.
Unfortunately, many parents and even some doctors are hesitant to vaccinate small babies or preemies on the recommended schedule which is based on age from birth, not from expected due date or weight. Which puts the most defenseless of babies in danger.

Actually statistically the risks from delaying the vaccine were higher than taking it for a small baby. But the Dr my parents were seeing delayed the vaccine. I was in hospital for months. I still have scars in my lungs which you can see in x-rays now as an adult. They don't bother me in anyway but it shows you. Ironically I have some natural immunity now as an adult. I got vaccinated as soon as I recovered. I don't thing people realize how common these diseases are. The child mortality rate in third countries is terrible because of lack of vaccination. The only reason non vaccinated children don't get diseases even more than they already do is that other children ARE vaccinated and this gives the community some protection.

Yes if you put your child's life at risk extreme measures should be taken.

SEPT 23 1989

very dark road we are travelling down here

One eyed Jack

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Not allowing access to schools would probably be better although as the backwards man said, they would probably be the kind of nut jobs who think that the schools are putting chemtrails into the air so they become liberal or whatever.

The people who are mostly against vaccines for their children are well-educated, affluent liberals. They simply don't trust medicine any more, instead justifying their actions by saying it's their right and their personal choice and they're refusing to vaccinate their children because of the idea of "putting harmful chemicals" in their children's bodies.

Homeschooling is fast becoming another liberal idea because they don't trust the education system, the same education system that gave them their education - too dangerous for their special little snowflakes.

Red Alert

I think they should make social welfare and particularly child benefit contingent on school attendance and staying out of trouble with the law.

VinLieger

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

very dark road we are travelling down here

Not really, imagine your baby is not allowed be vaccinated for medical reasons and some other numpties 8 year old who didn't get the vaccine by choice infects your completely defenceless child, that's a dark road.

Fair enough these fvcktards want to risk their own children's health but they are putting everyone else's children at risk as well since even a child that is vaccinated is not 100% immune from infection and the mortality rate of those with the vaccine who do get infected is scary high.

kunst nugget

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Homeschooling is fast becoming another liberal idea because they don't trust the education system, the same education system that gave them their education - too dangerous for their special little snowflakes.

I'm pretty sure that homeschooling in countries like here are usually motivated by religious concerns rather than liberal ones.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

It just takes complying with the state to a whole new level, Australia already has (I believe) compulsory voting in elections.

Nobody is forcing anyone to comply with the state though. Dont look for money off the state and you dont have to comply.

Jimoslimos

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that homeschooling in countries like are usually motivated by religious concerns rather than liberal ones.

In Australia homeschooling is common enough due to the remote nature of many areas.

One eyed Jack

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that homeschooling in countries like are usually motivated by religious concerns rather than liberal ones.

That certainly used to be the way things were alright, but now more and more parents are choosing to homeschool their children. It's not quite at the level here yet that it is in the US, but we've already had one high-profile case in Ireland, can't find the exact case now but to give you some idea -


http://www.magicmum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=445612

Greenmachine

Red Alert wrote: »

I think they should make social welfare and particularly child benefit contingent on school attendance and staying out of trouble with the law.

Make much more sense than stopping child benefit because refuse to vaccinate their children. If someone make that choice, so be. It is disgusting to stop child benefit on that basis.

SEPT 23 1989

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

very dark road we are travelling down here

The very dark road is allowing these idiots to get away with not vaccinating their child. We're getting outbreaks of diseases that we just shouldn't have because of them.

I think that if you don't vaccinate your child, then said child should be banned from anywhere they can infect others. Parents should face extremely hefty fines or even prison sentences if it is shown that their child is responsible for infecting others.

If they're not going to listen to 99.99999% of doctors (because 0.000001% should have their licence revoked) then they'll listen to their pockets and their lives being hit.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

Not as much as withholding money needed for food, clothing, etc.

So your proposal to address anti-scientific benightedness is to remove access to education from their offspring?

bucketybuck

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Why is a religious reason for not vaccinating your kids acceptable!

I would suspect it is the Aboriginal angle that prompted that clause.

kunst nugget

Jimoslimos wrote: »

In Australia homeschooling is common enough due to the remote nature of many areas.

I left out the word 'here' meaning countries like Ireland which I had presumed One eyed Jack was referring to. There was a lot kids schooled by radio in the Australian outback back in the day, wasn't there?

LadyAthame

I think counseling and medical advice should be offered first. Most parents are doing it out an sense of protection for their child. But after that you need to be extreme to protect that family. It's for the parents own good too. If their child should fall ill they would never forgive themselves. You have to remember it's primal fear and ignorance that makes parents do this. They don't want their child to be ill. I know people want to think they are knuckle dragging christian jihadists or something but the truth is they are just frightened. Parenthood is overwhelming and the truth is different people have different levels of education and this shapes their view of the world.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/anti-vaxx-mom-abandons-movement-after-all-seven-her-of-her-kids-get-whooping-cough/

“We had vaccinated our first three children on an alternative schedule and our youngest four weren’t vaccinated at all. We stopped because we were scared and didn’t know who to trust,” she explained. ” Was the medical community just paid off puppets of a Big Pharma-Government-Media conspiracy? Were these vaccines even necessary in this day and age? Were we unwittingly doing greater harm than help to our beloved children?

For all of that above read fear. And yes some people are more paranoid than others.
It's a lack of a proper relationship with their family physician too. You should trust your family physician is decent and competent. I think conveyer belt go systems negate that relationship.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So your proposal to address anti-scientific benightedness is to remove access to education from their offspring?

The sad thing is that there have already been outbreaks because of these people. I'd rather see a child being taken out of education over the risk of dozens being infected.

kylith

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Nobody is forcing anyone to comply with the state though. Dont look for money off the state and you dont have to comply.

And those who don't comply and don't look for money off the state aren't penalised at all and get a free pass to destroy herd immunity?

kunst nugget

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That certainly used to be the way things were alright, but now more and more parents are choosing to homeschool their children. It's not quite at the level here yet that it is in the US, but we've already had one high-profile case in Ireland, can't find the exact case now but to give you some idea -


http://www.magicmum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=445612

Can't see anything in that link.

Are you talking about the case where Monica O'Connor was sent to prison for homeschooling her children?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/mumofsix-released-from-jail-after-imprisonment-over-home-schooling-dispute-30558961.html

Considering I'd seen the likes of Breda O’Brien, David Quinn and several Christian news sites leaping to their defence, I'm guessing their was a religious motivation as to why they homeschooled their kids.

Here's David Quinn giving a healthy dose of Godwinning in his article about it.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/nazis-were-the-first-to-ban-homeschooling-for-kids-30563617.html

the_syco

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Because God will take care of those ones. Medical science is only necessary for heathen spawn.

Actually, some "heathen spawn" are allergic to ingredients, so can't take it, but are protected by "herd immunity" keeps them safe.

haveringchick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The people who are mostly against vaccines for their children are well-educated, affluent liberals. They simply don't trust medicine any more, instead justifying their actions by saying it's their right and their personal choice and they're refusing to vaccinate their children because of the idea of "putting harmful chemicals" in their children's bodies.

Homeschooling is fast becoming another liberal idea because they don't trust the education system, the same education system that gave them their education - too dangerous for their special little snowflakes.

I think this applies here in Ireland but these measures in Australia are being directed in the main at the indigenous people who are to a huge extent dependent on State aid but are uncooperative with lots of programs to the same extent.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The sad thing is that there have already been outbreaks because of these people. I'd rather see a child being taken out of education over the risk of dozens being infected.

Outbreaks of what? If children are already vaccinated and up-to-date, I don't see how non-vaccinated children can represent a statistically significant danger to them.

Vaccinations should be compulsory, as should publicly supervised education, in my opinion. No get-outs.

One eyed Jack

kunst nugget wrote: »

Can't see anything in that link.

Are you talking about the case where Monica O'Connor was sent to prison for homeschooling her children?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/mumofsix-released-from-jail-after-imprisonment-over-home-schooling-dispute-30558961.html

That's the one alright.

Considering I'd seen the likes of Breda O’Brien, David Quinn and several Christian news sites leaping to their defence, I'm guessing their was a religious motivation as to why they homeschooled their kids.

Here's David Quinn giving a healthy dose of Godwinning in his article about it.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/nazis-were-the-first-to-ban-homeschooling-for-kids-30563617.html

I'm not surprised really that those nutbars will use anything to further their own agenda either, but I don't think it was specifically religious reasons that they wanted to homeschool their children (92% of schools in Ireland are religious ethos). I did get a chuckle out of DQ's closing comments though -

That is why it is very bad thing when the State either forbids home-schooling or makes it almost impossible. When the State does that it is suppressing a very important expression of non-conformity. This is why we should cherish home-schooling as a matter of principle.

When he and his ilk make a living out of telling people how disastrous non-conformity would be for society... :pac:

Buford T. Justice XIX

cheekypup wrote: »

not really, their respective church can pay for the childs healthcare at no cost to the state or the taxpayer.

But will their church also pay for the healthcare costs of the other children that the non vaccinated children infect also? I doubt it somehow.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Outbreaks of what? If children are already vaccinated and up-to-date, I don't see how non-vaccinated children can represent a statistically significant danger to them.

Vaccinations should be compulsory, as should publicly supervised education, in my opinion. No get-outs.

Vaccination isn't a 100% get-out-of-jail-free card. Even vaccinated individuals can catch a lesser case of some diseases due to an exposure to a large challenge from a disease carrying individual. Not all diseases, mind, just some.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Outbreaks of what? If children are already vaccinated and up-to-date, I don't see how non-vaccinated children can represent a statistically significant danger to them.

Vaccinations should be compulsory, as should publicly supervised education, in my opinion. No get-outs.

Measles.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2015/02/01/anti-vaccine-movement-causes-worst-measles-epidemic-in-20-years/

If I remember right, there were outbreaks in New York too? I also think there have been outbreaks of other diseases.

I'm sure someone will explain it better, but even if your child is vaccinated, I believe they can still get the disease. Someone smarter than me will explain it better.

kylith

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Outbreaks of what? If children are already vaccinated and up-to-date, I don't see how non-vaccinated children can represent a statistically significant danger to them.

Vaccinations should be compulsory, as should publicly supervised education, in my opinion. No get-outs.

Not everyone can be vaccinated. As well as that, unvaccinated people are vessels in which mutations can occur which can infect people who are already vaccinated.

Outbreaks also occur, obviously, within groups of unvaccinated people.

ohnonotgmail

kunst nugget wrote: »

Can't see anything in that link.

Are you talking about the case where Monica O'Connor was sent to prison for homeschooling her children?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/mumofsix-released-from-jail-after-imprisonment-over-home-schooling-dispute-30558961.html

Considering I'd seen the likes of Breda O’Brien, David Quinn and several Christian news sites leaping to their defence, I'm guessing their was a religious motivation as to why they homeschooled their kids.

Here's David Quinn giving a healthy dose of Godwinning in his article about it.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/nazis-were-the-first-to-ban-homeschooling-for-kids-30563617.html

she wasnt sent to prison for homeschooling her children. She refused to allow the department of education check that her children were getting educated properly. She was brought to court. She was fined. She was "jailed" for not paying the fine. What makes the story even worse is that her husband is a secondary school teacher. You would hope that he knew better.

Buford T. Justice V

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Vaccination isn't a 100% get-out-of-jail-free card. Even vaccinated individuals can catch a lesser case of some diseases due to an exposure to a large challenge from a disease carrying individual. Not all diseases, mind, just some.

Like what disease?

Like I said, statistically significant.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sure someone will explain it better, but even if your child is vaccinated, I believe they can still get the disease. Someone smarter than me will explain it better.

Provided the vaccinations are up-to-date, I don't believe that is the case, except on rare occasions.

ohnonotgmail

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Outbreaks of what? If children are already vaccinated and up-to-date, I don't see how non-vaccinated children can represent a statistically significant danger to them.

Vaccinations should be compulsory, as should publicly supervised education, in my opinion. No get-outs.

vaccination success rates for mumps are only in the mid-80s.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

vaccination success rates for mumps are only in the mid-80s.

Not according to the first google hit I clicked on, which put it up to 95% when vaccines are up-to-date.

The extremely high effectiveness is why all children should be vaccinated, and why vaccination should be mandatory by law.

In my opinion, that's the road we should be going down. Instead of refusing to educate children already exposed to gross parental stupidity.