The Center for American Progress reports
The anti-vaccine sentiments that originated with a [completely] discredited British study linking the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) shot to autism have made their way to other western countries like Australia.
According to the government agency that tracks Australia's childhood vaccination rates, the rate of kids going without their shots has doubled over the past decade.
[...]Australia has announced an aggressive new approach in this area: Cutting off government benefits to parents who refuse to inoculate their children.
Under the proposal, parents who claim philosophical objections to vaccines will no longer be eligible for welfare payments and childcare rebates that can equal up to $11,500 per child in American dollars. Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced the policy change on Sunday, although it still has to be approved by Parliament.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:56AM
Where's the concern for public health?
It's obviously there or they wouldn't act in the first place.
Where's equality under the law down under?
What about the law is unequal? The state acts in a way that is equal for all parties. I think there's an analogy with punish for crimes. Just because the punishment is the same for everyone who commits a crime, like murder, doesn't mean that the consequences are the same. The suicide bomber isn't going to be equally affected by a tough punishment for murder because they'll be dead and unavailable for such.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:07AM
Why not choose something that will impact everyone equally and actually be a relevant consideration. For example, no school enrollment (public or private) without the vaccinations.
Since I'm pretty sure that being unvaccinated presents no particular risks in receiving social welfare payments, but attending school unvaccinated is certainly an issue.
(Score: 4, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:26AM
Why not choose something that will impact everyone equally and actually be a relevant consideration.
They did.
For example, no school enrollment (public or private) without the vaccinations.
How does that inconvenience the wealthy person equally? They can still enroll their children in schools outside of Australia or home tutor them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday April 14 2015, @04:29PM
Arguably, that actually would address the issue if they're sent out of country or kept inside.
Though good luck crossing borders without your shots.
(Score: 1) by Ox0000 on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:43AM
Why not choose something that will impact everyone equally and actually be a relevant consideration. For example, no school enrollment (public or private) without the vaccinations.
"X percent of your total net worth or total yearly expenditure(1) for your family (2) and any and all dependents, whichever is greater; levied per annum at tax time for every year in non-compliance (3)"
(1) so that you can't hide your assets thus lowering your total net worth
(2) so that it's not possible to move all your assets to your vaccinating friend and have them buy food and housing and clothes for you
(3) so that it's not possible to move your assets out of your control or 'live a simpler/cheaper life' for a year and thus dodge the punishment
There, how hard was this? When do I get elected to congress?
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:25AM
The point of mandatory vaccinations is to protect the child and other children around them. Refusing to provide that child with schooling only harms the child further. I don't know about Australia, but in Europe education is a human right that the parents and state can't deny they child.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:03AM
Leaving the parents without enough money to buy food is pretty harmful to the child as well.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @03:06PM
“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”
(Score: 1) by Starship Beowulf on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:16AM
If it was equal, the fine would be assessed as a percentage of income.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:58AM
The problem is people use whichever definition of "equal" benefits them most. To the rich, "equal" means "equal amount", but to people with nothing, "equal" means "equal percentage of disposable income / equal effect on ability to live". To the moronic and the rich, the only "fair" tax is a flat tax, where everyone pays say 10% of their income (which is totally fucking retarded because the poor need literally every last cent just to not starve to death, while the rich will have no problem surviving even if all of their liquid assets are taken).