Australia to Cut off Welfare to Anti-Vaxxers

Quote

Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children can lose up to $11,000 of welfare benefits a year under a new government policy, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has announced.

Currently parents can choose to opt out of vaccinations for medical or religious reasons, or by stating they are "conscientious objectors," and still receive taxpayer funded child care benefits.

Under the new "no jab, no pay" policy, the exemption as a conscientious objector will be removed starting January 2016.

"The choice made by families not to immunize their children is not supported by public policy or medical research nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of child care payments," said Abbott in a joint statement with Social Services Minister, Scott Morrison.

Thousands of families could lose out on welfare payments, with the Australian government estimating more than 39,000 children under the age of seven have not been vaccinated because of their parents' objections.

Link

Looks like they will even crack down on the people who are trying the phony religious objections. Good for them!

That's sweet! Now, let's do that in North America, too. Too many anti-vax nuts in Canada, and too many people sucking off the welfare system.

Holding these parunts up to doing the responsible, fucking MINIMAL thing is apparently too much, because a petition is already going around. I doubt they'll get enough signers, because there are a lot of people who choose to vax, and a lot of people who are sick of lazy welfare scags.

Quote
mumofsixbirds
That's sweet! Now, let's do that in North America, too. Too many anti-vax nuts in Canada, and too many people sucking off the welfare system.

Wouldn't pass in the US. This is a country where organ donation rules are bent so that totally undeserving thugs are given hearts to waste and people needing other parts are knocked down the list because someone starts bawling over a kid.

The US is losing most vestiges of common sense.

Australia seems to not take shit from retarded breeders, but unfortunately, America is much too breeder-centric to adopt such a policy as this. It'd be nice if they did, because it's a fantastic policy, but it won't happen here. This is a country where you can let your perfectly able-bodied, able-minded child sit at home and play computer games instead of going to school because "he's learning what he wants, when he wants" a.k.a. unschooling.

I don't know why childhood vaccinations are not mandatory. You need to inoculate your fuckin' dog to keep it, so why is the same not true for children? Hands down, breeders have single-handedly done the most damage to health care and herd immunity than anyone else through a combination of not vaccinating and demanding antibiotics for every damn sniffle their brats develop.

I think if parents are going to neglect their kids' health by not immunizing them, they should be fined. You want to keep your bastard "poison-free," then you pay for that luxury. Also, doctors should refuse to treat any child that is not vaccinated (barring any genuine medical reason for not getting them or delaying them). Isn't that how it works with vets? If the dog doesn't have his rabies shots, the vet won't examine him? On top of that, don't allow the fuckers to enroll in school or college until they've been properly vaccinated.

Unfortunately, this would only sway some anti-vaxers. Plenty of these crunchy hippie heifers would be all too glad to never take their brats to a doctor and unschool them in order to get around laws and policies put in place to discourage not vaccinating.

Perhaps there should be vaccination drives, where all breeders are required to bring their brats to a public place to receive MMR and DTaP vaccines, and anyone who doesn't show up gets their kids taken away and forcibly vaccinated... and then, right before Moo gets her brats back, she gets charged with neglect. I hate to advocate forced medical procedures, but if these stupid fucking breeders can't be trusted to make the proper health choices for their kids, someone else is going to have to step in and do it for them.

Oooo I love the sound of this, good on tony for telling them, do it for Australia or get a job so you can afford it when it fucks you over later.

This is great, the government is seriously trying to crack down on dole bludgers here in Australia, the biggest two groups are those who choose to study rather than work (because thats what their told by the job agencys to do, so the agencys have less pressure to place them in new jobs) or those who choose to breed so they can sit at home and contribute to the problem. The goal is less unemployed=less taxes and more money going towards where its needed like infrastructure or actually helping those who did just get shafted by an employer and are actually looking for new work asap.

When I was about twenty I worked out that for every employed person in Australia there was 3 unemployed, which ment I was working my are off to support 3 dole bludgers on my taxes, 7years later and unemployment's at an all time high, but this time I'm one of those unemployed people fighting more people than ever just to land an interview, either way it royally sucks.

And I hear it'll only be a couple of years before we hit 10 billion humans, our viable crop growing country's are under pressure from climate change yet we need to boost food production by 50% in that short time, I can only image the job front will have the same issues, anyone know how all this could have been solved?

That's right stop breeding in masses, start vaccinating the ones already alive, use only what you need to survive, and maybe start making breeders get sterilized after 1-2 kids to keep the numbers down till we got this shit sorted out, if that doesn't work, have people stop breeding for a while.

Although I personally think humans will whipe ourselves out through disease long before people give up breeding, anyone aware that scientist are looking at infecting people with genetically altered strands of polio to try to treat cancer patients whos cancer tissues resited kemo therapy?

It sucks for those who legitimately can't get vaxxed for whatever reasons, there ARE some, like egg allergies, BUT...

The anti vaxxers are working towards eliminating themselves from the population. Mother nature looooves a vulnerable population. Too bad the elderly, really young who WOULD have been vaccinated, and other legitimately vulnerable groups would get taken out at the same time.

But, that will solve a certain amount of the population problem, no?

While I'm never a fan of benefits for breeding, I hope that those who had legitimate reasons to not vaccinate aren't getting punished with the "conscientious objectors" and those claiming religious exemptions. Maybe they'll have to present a doctor's note or some sort of medical record showing why their children weren't vaccinated.


Captcha: c4UNT

------------------------------------------------------------
"Why children take so long to grow? They eat and drink like pig and give nothing back. Must find way to accelerate process..."
- Dr. Yi Suchong, Bioshock

"Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born."
- Garrett Hardin

"I feel like there's a message involved here somehow, but then I couldn't stop laughing at all the plotholes, like the part when North Korea has food."
- Youtube commentor referring to a North Korean cartoon.

"Reality is a bitch when it slowly crawls out of your vagina and shits in your lap."
- Reddit comment

"Bitch wants a baby, so we're gonna fuck now. #bareback"
- Cambion

Oh whatever. Abortion doctors are crimestoppers."
- Miss Hannigan

I really do hope this is a genuine government attempt to kick some ass for public health, and not some usual vote buying by a morally bankrupt politicians. Remember that the political party responsible for this, is the Oz equivalent of the pro-family, ultra conservative and religious Tea Party. This party has lost significant ground and votes from the family demographics, and methinks it's just a desperate bit of pork barrelling.
Also remember that in order for this legislation to pass the very hostile senate, they have to get the go ahead from those political parties and independents that hold the balance of power. These political parties and independents are the crunchy-hippy, ultra-greeny nuts and the dimwitted/proudly ignorant bogan trash types (akin to the trailer trash/rednecks/chavs etc) who tend to be anti-government/anti-vaxer/Pro kids types that would believe Google over a medically trained and qualified expert.


Although it's tied into the welfare system, and in order to claim for it, you need to provide medical information that dates back to your last 9 past lives, I can imagine that the legislation is so full of loopholes, that you could fly an aircraft carrier through - and the conditions preventing omission will no doubt be weaksauce (in order to prevent the much coveted 'family' voter backlash). Still, it wouldn't surprise me that the anti-vaxers will now just get a favour from their close friend GP's and religious ministers for vax omissions, as we know that the vast majority of anti-vaxers are those well-heeled, middle-upper class types.

I'd like to see vaccines made completely mandatory (i.e. you lose your kyds if you don't vaccinate without a specific medical reason), but this is a start. I hope something like this passes here in the U.S., but I'd be surprised if it did.

Anti-vaxxers now, other breeders later? It could be that Australia will eventually become the first industrialized country to end welfare for breeders entirely. Because of the small population and limited tax base, it's hard to see how the country can afford welfare benefits in the first place. And after all, this is the country in which an academic proposed ending the "baby bonus" paid at the time and instituting a carbon tax on babies after a certain number per couple instead. This was in late 2007, and an excerpt follows:

http://www.news.com.au/national/baby-tax-needed-to-save-planet-claims-expert/story-e6frfkp9-1111115071784

A West Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.

Egg allergies are not a reason to avoid childhood vaccines in almost every case. If the allergy just causes a rash, it isn't even contraindicated for the flu vaccine any more. Numerous studies have shown childhood vaccines are safe for kids with egg allergies.

Quote
kman
Anti-vaxxers now, other breeders later? It could be that Australia will eventually become the first industrialized country to end welfare for breeders entirely. Because of the small population and limited tax base, it's hard to see how the country can afford welfare benefits in the first place. And after all, this is the country in which an academic proposed ending the "baby bonus" paid at the time and instituting a carbon tax on babies after a certain number per couple instead. This was in late 2007, and an excerpt follows:

http://www.news.com.au/national/baby-tax-needed-to-save-planet-claims-expert/story-e6frfkp9-1111115071784

A West Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.

Oh my god..

Revoking the baby bonus and imposing a carbon levy for each child? I'll believe it when I see it.

If anything, we'd hear a lot of bleating about "the economy need more people" garbage if that were proposed. eyes2

Quote
kman
http://www.news.com.au/national/baby-tax-needed-to-save-planet-claims-expert/story-e6frfkp9-1111115071784

A West Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Why did I not hear about this? Someone actually said something about this out loud? Almost everything I've seen published on the subject dates to the 70s. Of course he has a snowball's chance in hell of it working that way, but it's so nice to hear someone saying it.

Quote
kman
Anti-vaxxers now, other breeders later? It could be that Australia will eventually become the first industrialized country to end welfare for breeders entirely. Because of the small population and limited tax base, it's hard to see how the country can afford welfare benefits in the first place. And after all, this is the country in which an academic proposed ending the "baby bonus" paid at the time and instituting a carbon tax on babies after a certain number per couple instead. This was in late 2007, and an excerpt follows:

http://www.news.com.au/national/baby-tax-needed-to-save-planet-claims-expert/story-e6frfkp9-1111115071784

A West Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.

I don't agree with going the way of China and India, that is another set up for disaster. BUT I like this guy's ideas about PAYING for extra kids instead of getting paid for extra kids.

I think breeders should at the very least lose their baby bonus.
The whole idea that answer is to just breed more is so stupid.
Yes, rate of new spawn production to those growing older is shrinking.
So what? Everybody in the first world has known the baby boomers were going to live longer and in greater numbers than in the past. We should have been preparing for it instead of acting like we didn't know all these people had a life expectancy up near 80 and they had not bred in large numbers.
So, while it will be rough funding medical care and social security (pensions or whatever other countries call it) these people worked and paid into it. I'd rather have a whole planet of aging baby boomers than a planet of spoiled spawn and entitled parents.
Lower population rates are a good thing and those who want to spawn, particularly above replacement rate should be paying for it. I would still give generous tax deductions to people who adopt or are caring for an elderly or disabled person at home because in the end it is better for the person as well as lowering the amount that ends up going to pay to house people inpatient.

Well if you don't want to vaccinate and you want to put other people's brats at risk, then you need to get a damn job. Iron lungs are expensive and sheeit.

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all."
~Sigmund Freud

Quote
Presto
It sucks for those who legitimately can't get vaxxed for whatever reasons, there ARE some, like egg allergies, BUT...

The video does, however, say that they won't qualify for benefits if they don't vaccinate their kids UNLESS it's for strict religious or medical reasons.
I fully support making exceptions based on medical reasons, but it pisses me off that religious ones also appear to be exempted. Religion should have no place in laws. After all, if their deity of choice forbids them to vaccinate their kids (and therefore allows them to put others in danger), it might as well pay for their childcare and financial benefits.

I don't have low self-esteem. That's a mistake. I have low esteem for everyone else.
-Daria

I personally don't think there should be exceptions for religion AT ALL. If your religion keeps you from following the law then perhaps a new religion is in order.

I agree about not letting them hide behind their religion; not where the public health is concerned. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins and all that.

Plus, what will prevent the anti-vaxxers just claiming religious exemption? Religion + children just doesn't mix because most of the time, it puts the child in terrible positions, whether it's being sexually abused by the clergy or being denied proper medical treatment. Parents should not be allowed to use religion to make choices for the people that cannot make their own decisions, legally or cognitively. If you want to forego treatment for your cancer because your version of Sky Daddy says no, that's your prerogative. But Sky Daddy gets no say if it's your child that is sick and needs chemo. Freedom of religion has limits.

------------------------------------------------------------
"Why children take so long to grow? They eat and drink like pig and give nothing back. Must find way to accelerate process..."
- Dr. Yi Suchong, Bioshock

"Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born."
- Garrett Hardin

"I feel like there's a message involved here somehow, but then I couldn't stop laughing at all the plotholes, like the part when North Korea has food."
- Youtube commentor referring to a North Korean cartoon.

"Reality is a bitch when it slowly crawls out of your vagina and shits in your lap."
- Reddit comment

"Bitch wants a baby, so we're gonna fuck now. #bareback"
- Cambion

Oh whatever. Abortion doctors are crimestoppers."
- Miss Hannigan

Quote
night owl
I agree about not letting them hide behind their religion; not where the public health is concerned. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins and all that.

Exactly. We don't accept religious beliefs that require you to sacrifice people on alternate Thursdays, so why do we allow this? It is a matter of public health not personal, so it should be treated the same as any other religious belief which involves hurting others.

Quote
awesominatrix

Quote
Presto
It sucks for those who legitimately can't get vaxxed for whatever reasons, there ARE some, like egg allergies, BUT...

The video does, however, say that they won't qualify for benefits if they don't vaccinate their kids UNLESS it's for strict religious or medical reasons.
I fully support making exceptions based on medical reasons, but it pisses me off that religious ones also appear to be exempted. Religion should have no place in laws. After all, if their deity of choice forbids them to vaccinate their kids (and therefore allows them to put others in danger), it might as well pay for their childcare and financial benefits.

Isn't it easy to say vaccines are against your religion? Or are they going to make you prove that you're religious?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What is a home without children? Quiet. ~Henny Youngman

I don't want people who want to dance, I want people who have to dance. ~George Balanchine

"I took the batteries out of my biological clock and put them in my vibrator"

_______________________________________________
“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”