Australian Government Plan to Increase Immunisation Rates

[Chris_D]

Immunise or lose benefits, parents told

The Government says 11 per cent of five-year-olds are not immunised and has announced a shake-up of the system which will take effect from July 1 next year.

Under the changes, families who refuse vaccinations face losing up to $2,100 per child in benefits.

Families will need to have their children fully immunised to receive the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) Part A end-of-year supplement.

A new immunisation check will be introduced for one-year-olds to supplement the existing immunisation checks at two and five years of age.

The FTB supplement, worth $726 per child each year, will now only be paid once a child is fully immunised at these checks.

I didn't realise this had become a serious issue in Australia too. When I was a kid I don't remember it ever being a question of getting immunised or not. It was just something you did.

[Widgetcraft]

Hurrdurr, it's a conspiracy, they're causin' da autism!

[J Arcane]

Good. I know, I know, "nanny state" and all that, but this just means the nanny state doesn't have to give you any money if you put your own children and everyone else at risk for no damn good scientific reason.

[Vanthar]

Makes sense to me. Parents are becoming increasingly stupid about immunizations, and I really hate seeing kids with these should-be-nonexistent illnesses in the clinic. I almost think it should be child abuse or neglect.

[MagGnome]

Yeah, this seems like a good thing to me as well.

[VerseD]

It's often better to incentivize progress rather than impose it by mandate, in my opinion.

[Zero]

Even when it comes to the lives of children being at risk because of their parents?

[Ox]

No matter how noble the intentions are, this program simply takes money away from families with small children. That's a fine threat, but probably some families will not bow to the threat and refuse immunization. Then kids with stupid parents get poorer. It's not easy to cheer for that concept.

[Panthera]

I think I can deal with that if it means less dead children.

[CES]

Originally Posted by Ox

No matter how noble the intentions are, this program simply takes money away from families with small children. That's a fine threat, but probably some families will not bow to the threat and refuse immunization. Then kids with stupid parents get poorer. It's not easy to cheer for that concept.

While I agree that anything that hinders a child's upbringing sucks does society as a whole want to reward (and by extension encourage) that stupidity in people? There's tolerance for other points of view and there's causing harm by neglect which is basically what parents who don't immunise their kids end up doing.

[Chris_D]

Hopefully some more parents will start to immunise their kids as a result and those that choose not to probably don't need the subsidy anyway.

[Ox]

Note I'm not saying I oppose the policy. But this is the same problem you always run into with state sanction of bad parents, or with sanctioning actors for what they do to their dependents: you want to punish the bad actor, but the bulk of the harm falls on the party you're trying to protect. It's the same problem as with economic sanctions against abusive regimes. Hence why I prefer simply removing bad actors from positions of responsibility, whether in child care or foreign affairs.

EDIT: I of course acknowledge my preferred solution has its own host of problems, which can cause reasonable people to disagree.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Originally Posted by J Arcane

Good. I know, I know, "nanny state" and all that, but this just means the nanny state doesn't have to give you any money if you put your own children and everyone else at risk for no damn good scientific reason.

I think that's about all I could say regarding the subject. Good on the Aussies.

I really can't sympathize with those being forced to do something they don't want to do by the government when the thing they don't want to do is causing easily preventable deaths in children.

[Narradisall]

Yeah, I'm all for it. Incentives rarely work, and you shouldn't need to 'reward' people for doing things they should be to protect their own children.

Stupid people tend to be poor and ill-educated, and have poor and ill-educated children. As long as they rely on hand outs they should have to adhere to basic principles to immunise their children.

[Shieldmaiden]

I'm really interested in seeing how well this works. I can't see all that many people choosing not to immunise their kids as soon as it means losing money.

[TheFlyingOrc]

My gut reaction is yay, but Ox makes a good point that the truly crazy parents now aren't immunizing their child, AND they have less money to take care of them. It would be nice if they would just do it because it is dumb not to.

[Vanthar]

Originally Posted by TheFlyingOrc

My gut reaction is yay, but Ox makes a good point that the truly crazy parents now aren't immunizing their child, AND they have less money to take care of them. It would be nice if they would just do it because it is dumb not to.

I agree that there will be a certain population hurt by this legislation, but I think that money is the strongest motivator available short of outright requiring the vaccinations.

[OUX]

The parent's are losing money but the government is saving money and might be able to put it to use on families that don't want to waste healthcare or treating their child's polio in the future. The money doesn't simply disappear, it is just not given to parents that obviously don't have their child's best interest in mind.

[Ox]

Originally Posted by Vanthar

I agree that there will be a certain population hurt by this legislation, but I think that money is the strongest motivator available short of outright requiring the vaccinations.

Why not do that? Is there a compelling reason why it should be legal to refuse vaccination?

[Ox]

Your Kung Fu is superior to mine, wise one. [bows]