Posted on 11/25/2011 10:21:19 AM PST by JerseyanExile
Parents who do not have their children fully immunised will be stripped of family tax benefits under a scheme announced by the Federal Government.
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.
Families are already required to have their child fully immunised 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 immunised against measles, mumps and rubella earlier, at 18 months instead of the current four years of age.
Health Minister Nicola Roxon is also announcing today a new campaign to advise parents and healthcare providers on what they can do to protect babies from whooping cough.
All parents of newborns will receive letters providing information on immunising against whooping cough and how to identify the disease and prevent it spreading.
"We know that immunisation is fundamental to a child's lifelong health and that's why we want to make sure children are immunised at the right time," Ms Roxon said.
The Government says the changes will deliver savings of $209.1 million over four years.
Just because it’s incomprehensible to you doesn’t mean that you can force your beliefs onto others. That’s not convervatism, that liberalism and it never ends. Somebody always knows ‘better’.
Doesn’t Obama know ‘better’ than you and is proceeding to destroy not only your profession but the actual health of millions because he knows ‘better’?
I thought it was pronounced ‘axed’? :-)
Thanks, wouldn't want you to lose patience with me....you might deem me a loser.....
The awfulness of Obamacare doesn't change the awsomeness of vaccinations. The development of mass vaccination was the single most important medical advance of the 20th century. In 1953 there were 53,000 new cases of polio. You would want to go back to that? I remember elementary school classmates in leg braces. When was the last time you saw such a thing at an elementary school? I remember my medical school professors talking of children dying of whooping cough in their arms. You would want to go back to that?
Nobody said it did except you.
Here is a link for a chart that lists vaccines in which aborted babies’ cells are used: http://www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccines.htm
Sick. Maybe not a toxin, but sick indeed.
Its simply amazing that not only here on FR but in general we read the term ‘lose’ spelled as ‘loose’. Drives me nuts. Also the term ‘dining’ spelled as ‘dinning’. Ok all done with the spelling bee rant.
...All health authorities agree that both the Salk Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV) and Sabin Oral or “live” Polio Vaccine (OPV) were contaminated with SV40 up until 1961. The contamination has been estimated to have exposed up to 30 million Americans and millions more in the USSR (where the OPV clinical trials were conducted) and other countries...
...In the U.S., federal law did not require that SV40 contaminated vaccines be discarded if they were manufactured before the new regulations went into effect. This meant that vaccines contaminated with SV40 were administered to children and adults until they were used up...
Although its name includes the word ‘tax’ to misleadingly suggest some sort of connection with productive activity, the “Family Tax Benefit” referred to is a welfare scheme for families with children, paid and administered by the welfare agency, separately from the tax system. There is no requirement to work to get it, the amount of the welfare payment decreases as a family earns more money, and it is entirely possible to get paid more than you paid in taxes. It really is a benefit.
The problem is that people don’t pay attention to how words are spelled as they read.
Thank You! I wish more people would look at this issue rationally. If vaccines work, the unvaccinated pose no risk to anyone except to other unvaccinated. (Who knowingly accept the risks.) If they do pose a risk to the vaccinated, it really doesn’t matter because vaccines don’t work. I also really hate the all or nothing viewpoint. Like ALL vaccines are absolutely necessary and skipping or selectively delaying any means you are an anti intellectual troglodyte.
Please explain to me why my new born needs to be protected against Hep B. Try to make the case that any child under 10 NEEDS this vaccine or somehow poses a risk to others for not having it. You cannot.
Varicella. Why do children now NEED to be vaccinated against chicken pox? Is it truly necessary or is it a convenience? If it is a convenience why should anyone who wants to forego that convenience be castigated for doing so? If I want to wait for my child to get this vaccine later in life and would prefer for them to possibly get chicken pox and have a better immunity how is that wrong?
Gardasil. Protects against ONE strain of cancer causing HPV. ONE. There are over 100 strains. There are 4,000 deaths per year due to cervical cancer. 4,000. That barely registers as a statistic, but my daughter (and soon my son) HAVE to have this? They have to play russian roulette with their health for this? I think it is far more likely that this “must have” vaccine is a must have due to lobbying and not to sound science.
All you need to know is that even ‘intelligent’ people are fundamentally nutso.
Don’t trust anybody. Don’t listen to anybody. Do your own thinking. Always...
Well, it appears that I was misled, though I don't know whether the poster I replied to knew that this wasn't a tax when he made his comment.
Didn’t know this was a conversation about the legality of the taxes in Australia....rather about the BENEFITS doled out to families there.
A family should not expect government aid—unless it properly takes care of their children. Seems like a reasonable demand.
I’d rather not have the government dole out benefits at all, but, that’s not the world we live in.
A bit like demanding welfare recipients in the USA not to be illegal drug users.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.