Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Australia Government Medicine

In Australia, Immunize Or Lose Benefits 680

An anonymous reader writes with news of a plan from the Australian government to cut down on the number of kids who aren't vaccinated. The new scheme will deny family tax benefits to parents whose children don't pass immunization checks. Quoting: "The FTB supplement, worth $726 per child each year, will now only be paid once a child is fully immunized at these checks. Families are already required to have their child fully immunized to receive Child Care Benefit and the Child Care Rebate. Children will also be required for the first time to be vaccinated against meningococcal C, pneumococcal and chicken pox. Children will also be immunized against measles, mumps and rubella earlier, at 18 months instead of the current four years of age."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In Australia, Immunize Or Lose Benefits

Comments Filter:
  • Hurray! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 25, 2011 @03:58PM (#38168408)

    Rational social interest trumps irrational "self" interest, for once. The USA could learn a thing or two from Australia.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by walkerp1 ( 523460 )
      I think America knows very well how to marginalize the socioeconomic status of its inhabitants as a means for stripping away basic personal freedoms.
    • Re:Hurray! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tsa ( 15680 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @05:59PM (#38169688) Homepage

      Yes. God doesn't protect you from sickness. Vaccination can.

  • Seems fair... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <> on Friday November 25, 2011 @03:59PM (#38168414) Journal

    ...considering that they have socialized medicine. To libertarians this probably looks like a communist nightmare, I'll admit that to me it only seems OK because I don't believe in the Right to Put Everyone In Danger By Being a Total Moron.

    • Re:Seems fair... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by eddy ( 18759 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @04:04PM (#38168458) Homepage Journal

      How can it look communist? They're using money to incentivise desired behavior. What could be more capitalistic than that? :-p

      • Re:Seems fair... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @04:25PM (#38168628)

        Because in modern society, the right-wing fascists have changed the definition of "communist" to "anything we don't like". It's a very effective means by which to control the large segment of the public who were brought up fearing nuclear war with an actual communist country.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Vaphell ( 1489021 )

          pot calling the kettle black - are you sure you haven't misused the word 'fascist'?

          • Re:Seems fair... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by artor3 ( 1344997 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @05:24PM (#38169234)

            Let's see...

            Ultra-nationalist, check!
            Idolize the military, check!
            Desire to purge "degenerative effects on culture" (e.g. gay marriage, non-English speakers, political correctness), check!
            Promote political violence (i.e. "second amendment solutions"), check!
            Support single party rule (putting a return to power over policy goals), check!

            The only criterion they don't meet is that they sell out to the wealthy capitalists too often, but if they continue to embrace the Tea Party, they'll end up meeting that criterion as well.

            The Republicans weren't always this way. Just five years ago, I'd never have accused them of being fascists. But today? Hell yes they are.

          • Re:Seems fair... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by microbox ( 704317 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @06:50PM (#38170314)
            No, he used the word fascist spot on. The far-right are the type of suspicious nationalist bigots that would have thrived in Nazi Germany. Scream outrage all you want. Don't care.

            Australia as a semi public/private system that is light-years ahead of the USA on multiple measures. The total cost is way less than half what the US pays per capita, and the health outcomes are better. Furthermore, if you're rich, you can get your weekly anal flush, or whatever you want.
      • It is common sense. Common sense seriously disturbs the glibertardian mind.
    • by Tharsman ( 1364603 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @04:11PM (#38168526)

      NOOOO!!! I demand to be able to risk my children's lives due to my personal ignorance and FUD over retardation inducing vaccinations!!!

      If any country forces parents to vaccinate their children, my personal freedom is violated!!! How can Obama allow this to happen in any country?! Why did we vote for him?!

      I need people to know my child's retardation is inherited and not forced by a doctor's vaccines!!!!! AAAAERGGGGG!!! :P

    • Re:Seems fair... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AngryDeuce ( 2205124 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @04:35PM (#38168708)

      To libertarians this probably looks like a communist nightmare,

      What doesn't look like a communist nightmare to them?

      Half the people fear mongering about communism don't even know what the fuck it is outside of "HURR DURR CHINA AND NORTH KOREA." The sheer numbers of those same people that equate it with fascism alone is a good indicator that they have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

  • that which puts me and my children in danger- not getting vaccinated, is not a natural freedom.

    The problem with the definition of freedom, as defined by teenagers (not chronological teenagers, but psychological teenagers) is that it does not take into account how some "freedoms" naturally and automatically impinge on the freedoms of others.

    For example: your freedom to play your music as loud as you want, my freedom to get a good night's sleep. Your freedom to consume nicotine, my freedom to breathe clean air when I walk down the sidewalk. You freedom to talk on your cellphone, my freedom to enjoy a movie. Etc.

    If you claim as a right or freedom that which impinges on someone else's rights or freedoms, without even considering the possibility, you aren't selfish. You're just stupid: you don't know what freedom really is. To you, it is "let me do whatever I want without consideration of effects or consequences." That is "freedom" as defined by an ignorant teenager (again, not a chronological teenager, a psychological one, who could be of any age), and has absolutely nothing to do with the real fight for freedom in this world by real freedom fighters, who are often quoted by people who don't even know what freedom really is.

  • by pbjones ( 315127 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @04:39PM (#38168766)

    if you want the free benefits from society then you have to live up to expectations. It's your choice as to immunisation or not, but you are making a decision for your child, not for yourself, and so it is reasonable to want to protect your child from potentially fatal diseases, and teach them to swim, and to look before crossing the road. As many of these diseases can be passed on to others, it's also a community issue.

  • by overshoot ( 39700 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @04:41PM (#38168792)
    If she didn't already go around foaming at the mouth, this would certainly light her off. I've got to check on Peter Bowditch [] more often; he's going to have a blast covering this.
  • by Capt. Beyond ( 179592 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @05:32PM (#38169314)

    Is that if you have a medical exception, or conscientious objector that needs a Dr to sign, you will still get your benefits.

    From: []

    "What exemptions will be available for the new immunisation conditions linked to the Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement?
    While the Government considers that immunisation is an important health measure for children and families, existing exemptions will continue to be available.

    A child may have a temporary or permanent exemption if a recognised immunisation provider determines that receiving the vaccine is medically contraindicated. A child may also receive an exemption from the immunisation requirements if a recognised immunisation provider indicates that the parent has a conscientious objection to immunising their child.

    These exemptions will also continue for Child Care Benefit. "

    They also do not mention any additional ingredients of these vaccines. But that is another story.

  • So this is unusual? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by melonman ( 608440 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @05:42PM (#38169442) Journal

    I live in France, where you can't get kids into kindergarten or school without vaccination certificates. And they cut child benefit too. The result is a very high vaccination rate, and that protects those who cannot be vaccinated such as very young children.

Each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance. -- James Bryant Conant