Opinion of 'no jab no pay' (Australian vaccination policy)

[DC Al Fine]

Explanation here

Tl;dr: Parents who don't vaccinate their kids have their welfare and child benefits clawed back. Daycares in some states are not allowed to admit unvaccinated kids and can be fined if they do. Also of note is that the policy does not include a religious or concientious objector exception.

Thoughts?

[dead0man]

that's probably the best way to do it.  I don't agree with forcing it on people, but if they don't want to play ball by the rules then we shouldn't have to play ball with them either.  GTFO and don't come back until you fall in line!  You can still get the most important benefits to living in a modern western liberal democracy (safety, freedom), but you don't get the less important, but more tangible benefits like money and a roof.

[DC Al Fine]

that's probably the best way to do it.  I don't agree with forcing it on people, but if they don't want to play ball by the rules then we shouldn't have to play ball with them either.  GTFO and don't come back until you fall in line!  You can still get the most important benefits to living in a modern western liberal democracy (safety, freedom), but you don't get the less important, but more tangible benefits like money and a roof.

That's surprising. I would've thought you'd be on the opposite side of this one. How far does "play ball by the rules" extend in your libertarian mindset?

[dead0man]

that's the rub isn't it?  For everybody.  Where to draw the line....I don't know where I'd draw the line exactly.  Since I like to think I'm reasonable, I'd be content anywhere inside a wide, grey line.  Take benefits from parents of fat kids?  Probably not.  But not vaccinating against things science knows most people should be vaccinated for, yeah, I don't have a problem with taking away the free sh**t from such people.

of course there are some secondary problems with that, the big one being we would just be further hurting the children of those afraid of vaccinations.  It's the same argument people make against sanctions against bad govts and it is a good argument.  I don't know if it's right or not, but it's certainly something we should consider.

[HillGoose]

Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should lose custody of them.

"No jab no pay" is better than doing nothing, but it's scary that we have allowed vaccine paranoia to fester. We have exposed large numbers of children to mortal danger under the cloak of "tolerance" and "free speech."

Religious exemptions are defensible for small groups that stick to themselves and don't send their children to public schools, but anything else is a deadly surrender to crackpots. It's time for our sufferance of this insidious neurosis to end.

Agree.

I think that if you're an anti-vaxxer, having children in the first place is selfish, immoral, and irresponsible. Not to say they should be prevented from having children, but it really reflects on their entitled mindset that they do.

Basically what the anti-vax movement boils down to is a sort of eugenicist "I'd rather have a dead child than one with a learning disability" which is sickening and horrifying. I don't see how they can possibly claim to love their children.

If I have a child starting kindergarten in 10 years I'm going to be afraid to send it to a public school because of these idiots. I think at the very least, unvaccinated children should be prohibited from attending public schools, and as to what one poster was saying, I also agree if you're going to play the government's game and get welfare and child care benefits, you should have to abide by their rules, which should include getting your child vaccinated.

If someone's going to have an unvaccinated child, they better at least keep it the hell away from my child, and I don't think they should be using my tax dollars to spread disease either.

[Frodo]

That sounds like an excellent idea. 

[Santander]

They should add "no job no pay" too...

[courts]

i don't agree with that..although i think vaccination should be compulsory in general

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Parents whose children die due to lack of vaccinations should be arrested and charged with manslaughter.

[Green Line]

That’s horrible. 

[HillGoose]

That’s horrible. 

what I think is horrible is some entitled "can I speak to your manager" motherfer with a degree from Google U. getting a bunch of other people's children killed by sending their unvaccinated brat into a school and causing a freakin plague

[Green Line]

That’s horrible. 

what I think is horrible is some entitled "can I speak to your manager" motherfer with a degree from Google U. getting a bunch of other people's children killed by sending their unvaccinated brat into a school and causing a freakin plague

Good thing that’s never happened 😜

[HillGoose]

That’s horrible.  

what I think is horrible is some entitled "can I speak to your manager" motherfer with a degree from Google U. getting a bunch of other people's children killed by sending their unvaccinated brat into a school and causing a freakin plague

Good thing that’s never happened 😜

it will if we keep letting these David Koresh losers get their way.

people who actually have a religious opposition to vaccines are probably living almost entirely within some place called "the farm" or "the compound" or something of that sort in goddamn Montana anyway. with everyone else it's just an easy excuse.

[Lachi]

It’s an excellent policy.

[Velasco]

Conscientious objection must be respected on all cases it doesn't affect public interest. In this case objection poses a conflict between personal beliefs and public health. The latter must prevail.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I can understand the daycare restriction, but I would probably take issue with the welfare benefits portion.

[TJ in Oregon]

I can understand the daycare restriction, but I would probably take issue with the welfare benefits portion.

I agree. Who knows what arbitrary childcare decisions will be linked to welfare benefits next?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Also of note is that the policy does not include a religious or concientious objector exception.

Awesome. FP!

[DC Al Fine]

I can understand the daycare restriction, but I would probably take issue with the welfare benefits portion.

I agree. Who knows what arbitrary childcare decisions will be linked to welfare benefits next?

I understand that a centre right government introduced the policy, but I'm surprised that so many progressives support it. Welfare state programs were always defended along the lines of "everyone deserves healthcare" or "no child deserves to grow up in poverty". Those are very good principles. I don't think we should abandon them just because crackpots aren't conforming to the wishes of the state.

There's also this weird contradiction in the logic behind the policy:

1) Not vaccinating kids is harmful to children (Ok fair enough)
2) Therefore the state should intervene to make sure kids are vaccinated. (Well, I'm not so sure, but maybe an education campaign would help)
3) So let's take away their grocery money (huh?!)

Does anyone find it weird that the only people arguing against cutting welfare benefits for children on this thread are three conservatives?

[DC Al Fine]

Parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should lose custody of them.

I will never understand how a segment of progressives can get so freaked out about Donald Trump and his ilk's authoritarianism (and rightly so) and then turn around and be so cavalier about something as invasive and authoritarian as taking children away from their parents.

[HillGoose]

I can understand the daycare restriction, but I would probably take issue with the welfare benefits portion.

I agree. Who knows what arbitrary childcare decisions will be linked to welfare benefits next?

I understand that a centre right government introduced the policy, but I'm surprised that so many progressives support it. Welfare state programs were always defended along the lines of "everyone deserves healthcare" or "no child deserves to grow up in poverty". Those are very good principles. I don't think we should abandon them just because crackpots aren't conforming to the wishes of the state.

There's also this weird contradiction in the logic behind the policy:

1) Not vaccinating kids is harmful to children (Ok fair enough)
2) Therefore the state should intervene to make sure kids are vaccinated. (Well, I'm not so sure, but maybe an education campaign would help)
3) So let's take away their grocery money (huh?!)

Does anyone find it weird that the only people arguing against cutting welfare benefits for children on this thread are three conservatives?

If you're going to play the government's game and take welfare money, you have to play by their rules. It's as simple as that.

If they're not being responsible parents, the government shouldn't be giving them welfare money.

If you don't want to vaccinate your child, then don't. But don't expect society to support that immature and irresponsible decision making.

[RFayette]

This is a fantastic idea.  Nonvaccination is a severe public health risk and can harm others by reducing herd immunity.  Punitive measures make a lot of sense to me here.

[RFayette]

It is more dangerous to their lives than many other widely accepted justifications for sundering families. The absence of malicious intent makes no difference.

Agreed.  If one accepts that neglecting a child’s basic  needs is a valid reason for governmental action, then it seems silly not to apply the standard to vaccination.

[mvd10]

I can understand the daycare restriction, but I would probably take issue with the welfare benefits portion.

I agree. Who knows what arbitrary childcare decisions will be linked to welfare benefits next?

I understand that a centre right government introduced the policy, but I'm surprised that so many progressives support it. Welfare state programs were always defended along the lines of "everyone deserves healthcare" or "no child deserves to grow up in poverty". Those are very good principles. I don't think we should abandon them just because crackpots aren't conforming to the wishes of the state.

There's also this weird contradiction in the logic behind the policy:

1) Not vaccinating kids is harmful to children (Ok fair enough)
2) Therefore the state should intervene to make sure kids are vaccinated. (Well, I'm not so sure, but maybe an education campaign would help)
3) So let's take away their grocery money (huh?!)

Does anyone find it weird that the only people arguing against cutting welfare benefits for children on this thread are three conservatives?

* social conservatives. You're not exactly like the painfully upper middle-class flawless beautiful libertarianish Tory boys inhabiting the atlas right .

Personally I think the potential damage that is done to the child by not vaccinating them justifies this, even though the religious nuts probably will just ignore it and take their financial loss (which would sadly be even more harmful for the child). This isn't a case of free speech, this is parents severely abusing their power position which will inevitably result in a very dangerous situation for the child. I'd actually favour taking the children away in this case. It'd be free speech if the parent refused vaccines for themselves.

[HillGoose]

I can understand the daycare restriction, but I would probably take issue with the welfare benefits portion.

I agree. Who knows what arbitrary childcare decisions will be linked to welfare benefits next?

I understand that a centre right government introduced the policy, but I'm surprised that so many progressives support it. Welfare state programs were always defended along the lines of "everyone deserves healthcare" or "no child deserves to grow up in poverty". Those are very good principles. I don't think we should abandon them just because crackpots aren't conforming to the wishes of the state.

There's also this weird contradiction in the logic behind the policy:

1) Not vaccinating kids is harmful to children (Ok fair enough)
2) Therefore the state should intervene to make sure kids are vaccinated. (Well, I'm not so sure, but maybe an education campaign would help)
3) So let's take away their grocery money (huh?!)

Does anyone find it weird that the only people arguing against cutting welfare benefits for children on this thread are three conservatives?

* social conservatives. You're not exactly like the painfully upper middle-class flawless beautiful libertarianish Tory boys inhabiting the atlas right .

Personally I think the potential damage that is done to the child by not vaccinating them justifies this, even though the religious nuts probably will just ignore it and take their financial loss (which would sadly be even more harmful for the child). This isn't a case of free speech, this is parents severely abusing their power position which will inevitably result in a very dangerous situation for the child. I'd actually favour taking the children away in this case. It'd be free speech if the parent refused vaccines for themselves.