6 ms·

Australia has taken an interesting approach to the anti-vaccine issue - if you don't vaccinate your child you don't get the tax break/welfare for your child. It

Australia has taken an interesting approach to the anti-vaccine issue - if you don't vaccinate your child you don't get the tax break/welfare for your child. It is amazing when it affects a parents hip pocket how their views on vaccination change.

cies 8y ago
Interesting, force the poor to vaccinate according to schedule while allowing the rich freedom of choice. Sounds like income/wealth discriminatory to me.
- cies 8y ago
  It's okay to downvote me, but please tell me whats wrong with my logic...
  - craigmi 8y ago
    You could say this about pretty much anything with fines involved. "It's OK for the rich to park on double yellow lines, litter in the streets, etc.."
    - cies 8y ago
      Yes, I totally agree (and often argue) that fines that are not income/wealth-variable are a way to give liberty to the rich while restricting the poor. Only Norway has a system like this, afaik.
    - orbitur 8y ago
      Yes. That is one of the correct ways to frame this problem.
  - tangentspace 8y ago
    Would you call it discrimination to specifically target poor people to receive government aid? Typically people call a policy discriminatory when some person or group is being harmed, but most people here agree that vaccinating children is helping to prevent harm from occurring, so it does not appear to be discriminatory. The fact that this policy does not apply to wealthy people is a red herring, since it doesn't impact whether or not poor people are being harmed.
    - cies 8y ago
      > Would you call it discrimination to specifically target poor people to receive government aid? Yes. It is called positive discrimination, because the object of discrimination is advantaged by it. > so it does not appear to be discriminatory. You want to choose the vaccination schedule yourself, now you have to pay a fine (or not receive a benefit: close to the same thing). It is said to prevent harm from occuring, but apparently the person who's making the decision here believes the Finnish schedule (which is 1/2-1/3 of the US schedule in size) is better for them. No choice for the poor, all the choice to the rich. Discriminatory policy if you ask me.
  - everdev 8y ago
    Just tons of down votes for even explaining what anti-vaxxers might think, nothing wrong with your logic. I think people feel genuinely scared about contracting serious illnesses so it's hitting a lot of buttons and the two sides don't seem to be able to hear or respect each other. Note the name calling and judgement in many of the threads.
    - mnm1 8y ago
      The two sides are not equal. This is a mistake I see constantly. One's dumb beliefs are not equal to science. Why would anyone respect the stupidity of anti vaxxers? How about throwing those assholes in jail for endangering not only their children but everyone else also? That would be better than the tax break proposed by Australia as it would apply to both the rich and the poor equally and be an even better incentive.
      - everdev 8y ago
        The name calling and threats actually just makes you look bad. If someone says they're scared to vaccinate their kid, only respect and listening can possibly help you achieve your goal. I actually think vaccines are a good thing but get down voted for even saying we should respect anti-vaxxers as people. As I get older I've realized that resistance is usually valid even if I don't agree with it. People rarely make decisions against their own interest. The trick is to align their interests with yours and calling them names will just drive then farther from you. It seems like many people here just want to spout anger at anti-vaxxers rather than make any progress as a community.
    - mcphage 8y ago
      > Just tons of down votes for even explaining what anti-vaxxers might think, nothing wrong with your logic. As the GP explained, there are a lot fewer anti-vaxxers when it requires them to voluntarily take a financial hit. > the two sides don't seem to be able to hear or respect each other. You’re not going to find a lot of support or respect for anti-science positions on a strongly pro-science message board.
      - 8y ago
- viraptor 8y ago
  While true, the numbers are not even, since the are more poorer people who do care about the extra money, so it may be a practical approach.
  - cies 8y ago
    Is the number not being even a good reason to create policy that favors some over others? How impractical is it to make fines income/wealth-variable?
    - viraptor 8y ago
      There's a difference here though. It's a lack of benefits, not a fine. You could adjust the latter based on the income, but not the former. Technical detail, but i believe benefits impact is easier to pass as a law than an outright fine. Btw, higher income people are also impacted by policies like kindergarten access http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/no-childcare-or-kindergarten-unvaccinated-australian-kids/ http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/no-childcare-o...
- danieltillett 8y ago
  Well that is the way of the world for everything else, but if the aim is ensuring herd immunity then encouraging the poor (who have most of the kids) to vaccinate then it works.
  - cies 8y ago
    "it works"; well making the "fine" income/wealth dependent also works and also works for the rich.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      Yes, but this is another topic. In practice the middle classes (there are too few very rich children to really matter) respond to the 'incentive' just as well as the poor. In Australia anti-vaccination is a middle class phenomenon, the poor (in the main) are not against vaccination and just need an effective reminder to vaccinate.

cies 8y ago

Interesting, force the poor to vaccinate according to schedule while allowing the rich freedom of choice. Sounds like income/wealth discriminatory to me.

cies 8y ago
It's okay to downvote me, but please tell me whats wrong with my logic...
- craigmi 8y ago
  You could say this about pretty much anything with fines involved. "It's OK for the rich to park on double yellow lines, litter in the streets, etc.."
  - cies 8y ago
    Yes, I totally agree (and often argue) that fines that are not income/wealth-variable are a way to give liberty to the rich while restricting the poor. Only Norway has a system like this, afaik.
  - orbitur 8y ago
    Yes. That is one of the correct ways to frame this problem.
- tangentspace 8y ago
  Would you call it discrimination to specifically target poor people to receive government aid? Typically people call a policy discriminatory when some person or group is being harmed, but most people here agree that vaccinating children is helping to prevent harm from occurring, so it does not appear to be discriminatory. The fact that this policy does not apply to wealthy people is a red herring, since it doesn't impact whether or not poor people are being harmed.
  - cies 8y ago
    > Would you call it discrimination to specifically target poor people to receive government aid? Yes. It is called positive discrimination, because the object of discrimination is advantaged by it. > so it does not appear to be discriminatory. You want to choose the vaccination schedule yourself, now you have to pay a fine (or not receive a benefit: close to the same thing). It is said to prevent harm from occuring, but apparently the person who's making the decision here believes the Finnish schedule (which is 1/2-1/3 of the US schedule in size) is better for them. No choice for the poor, all the choice to the rich. Discriminatory policy if you ask me.
- everdev 8y ago
  Just tons of down votes for even explaining what anti-vaxxers might think, nothing wrong with your logic. I think people feel genuinely scared about contracting serious illnesses so it's hitting a lot of buttons and the two sides don't seem to be able to hear or respect each other. Note the name calling and judgement in many of the threads.
  - mnm1 8y ago
    The two sides are not equal. This is a mistake I see constantly. One's dumb beliefs are not equal to science. Why would anyone respect the stupidity of anti vaxxers? How about throwing those assholes in jail for endangering not only their children but everyone else also? That would be better than the tax break proposed by Australia as it would apply to both the rich and the poor equally and be an even better incentive.
    - everdev 8y ago
      The name calling and threats actually just makes you look bad. If someone says they're scared to vaccinate their kid, only respect and listening can possibly help you achieve your goal. I actually think vaccines are a good thing but get down voted for even saying we should respect anti-vaxxers as people. As I get older I've realized that resistance is usually valid even if I don't agree with it. People rarely make decisions against their own interest. The trick is to align their interests with yours and calling them names will just drive then farther from you. It seems like many people here just want to spout anger at anti-vaxxers rather than make any progress as a community.
  - mcphage 8y ago
    > Just tons of down votes for even explaining what anti-vaxxers might think, nothing wrong with your logic. As the GP explained, there are a lot fewer anti-vaxxers when it requires them to voluntarily take a financial hit. > the two sides don't seem to be able to hear or respect each other. You’re not going to find a lot of support or respect for anti-science positions on a strongly pro-science message board.
    - 8y ago
viraptor 8y ago
While true, the numbers are not even, since the are more poorer people who do care about the extra money, so it may be a practical approach.
- cies 8y ago
  Is the number not being even a good reason to create policy that favors some over others? How impractical is it to make fines income/wealth-variable?
  - viraptor 8y ago
    There's a difference here though. It's a lack of benefits, not a fine. You could adjust the latter based on the income, but not the former. Technical detail, but i believe benefits impact is easier to pass as a law than an outright fine. Btw, higher income people are also impacted by policies like kindergarten access http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/no-childcare-or-kindergarten-unvaccinated-australian-kids/ http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/no-childcare-o...
danieltillett 8y ago
Well that is the way of the world for everything else, but if the aim is ensuring herd immunity then encouraging the poor (who have most of the kids) to vaccinate then it works.
- cies 8y ago
  "it works"; well making the "fine" income/wealth dependent also works and also works for the rich.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    Yes, but this is another topic. In practice the middle classes (there are too few very rich children to really matter) respond to the 'incentive' just as well as the poor. In Australia anti-vaccination is a middle class phenomenon, the poor (in the main) are not against vaccination and just need an effective reminder to vaccinate.