View Full Version : Immunisation Allowance - who should get it...?
Duchessa
18-09-2006, 19:49
I got a big surprise today when I opened my mail... I received the girls' Immunisation Allowance - nearly $500. Its funny cos I don't actually remember filling out any paper work for it. The only time I have contacted Centrelink was for the Maternity Allowance as dh's income is outside of the bracket for Family Payment or whatever its called. Anyway, I have it now.
When I told dh he asked me if I was going to give it back. I said "no" as we have fulfilled the requirements outlined by Centrelink (according to their criteria) despite the fact that the girls have had received no vaccinations. And when I explained to him what the criteria are, he agreed that it is rightfully ours.
What do you think? Don't hold back - tell me why.
Its multiple choice BTW...
brizbabe
18-09-2006, 20:03
The Maternity Allowance of $222.30 (lump sum payment)-per child-lucky you- you have twins if I remember correctly???
Not sure what your question of who should get it is aimed at??
Do you mean because your DHs income is high enough that you aren't eligible for FTB A or because you haven't had your children immunised?
Maternity Immunisation Allowance hasn't been income tested for a couple of years now so you're all "good there" LOL:D
As to non immunised children remaining eligible under the government legislation for reasons such as a conscientious objection to immunisation or if there are medical reasons why your child should not be immunised. I guess the Government is trying not to discriminate. I have no STRONG views on this one either way.
My child is immunised-my choice and not expecting anyone to agree or disagree with this, I was ineligible for the payment because it was income tested at that time however I wasn't immunising for the money anyway as I am sure most parents wouldn't do it for that reason alone either.
Are you gonna buy something interesting with the money????:)
Edited @8.07 D'oh, posted without actually noticing the poll-oops sorry-hee hee hee!!!!
MamaSage
18-09-2006, 20:09
Personally, I do not understand the logic behind it. You can have your childs vaccinations done at a free clinic at the GP or local child health centre - so you do not need to pay for them, so whay the cash incentive? And as for non vaxers, why do they still get it? They do not even vax :o so they especially are not paying anything for it... Seems odd to me. (FWIW I do not fully vax, so I do not see why we got it. Not having a go at non vaxxers in any way..)
You can get the allowance even if your children are not immunised you just fill in a form and get it signed off by the doc (ie for medical reasons) or you site religious/personal reasons and send it in. I don't really see the wisdom in calling it an immunisation allowance then giving it to everyone who claims it, but it is expensive raising kids so every little bit helps. As for getting the allowance when they are vaccinated, if you ticked the box on the maternity payment form about the immunisation register then you get it sent out when it is all completed without having to request it.
~EmsMum~
18-09-2006, 20:36
I don't think non vaxers should be entitled to it, but thats JMO
I think it's a joke that the vax allowence is there to encourage people to vaccinate their children as per schedule.. and yet they hand it out to those who don't vax. An absolute joke.
vanillabean
18-09-2006, 21:10
[QUOTE=Seekrit;658793]I think it's a joke that the vax allowence is there to encourage people to vaccinate their children as per schedule.. and yet they hand it out to those who don't vax. An absolute joke.
I agree..
I think it's a joke that the vax allowence is there to encourage people to vaccinate their children as per schedule.. and yet they hand it out to those who don't vax. An absolute joke.
My thoughts exactly :yes: I think people who have medical reasons and only partly vax should only get a part payment...tho that might confuse things at centrelink even more :rolleyes:
Sorry recent posters - but I disagree with you.
I have no problems with ppl who research and then choose not to vax - I can't fault anyone who makes an informed decision.
The allowance is there to prompt ppl who would vax, but "forget" about it. It is a reward for the ppl who stay on track with their decision.
I don't see why we should withhold money from a family because they have made an informed decision not to vax, talked it over with a doc and got their objection form signed.
...otherwise you are blackmailing ppl into making a decision they think is wrong, just to get that handy $500 dollars - and I think that is immoral. But that's JMO (but I do think I'm pretty objective - I do choose to vax, but I'm not entitled to, nor did I receive the allowance)
Cheers
MamaSage
18-09-2006, 21:32
I don't agree with it AT ALL! Whether you do it or not, I don't see that we need another sweetner from the govt to entice us to do it, especially when it is free in most cases anyway.
If the government wants to give me money for going about my business, who am I to say no?
I agree with X.
~EmsMum~
18-09-2006, 21:36
I don't agree with it AT ALL! Whether you do it or not, I don't see that we need another sweetner from the govt to entice us to do it, especially when it is free in most cases anyway.
exactly, Im vaxing because I believe its the best for my DD not because of the money
jennababe
18-09-2006, 21:56
i never thought of not imunising my child..
i didnt really look into it.. i just thought that its in there best interest and they obviously do it for good reasons...
anyway.. so my ds will be having all his imunisations done.. actually had 3 needles today:crying:
so if they wanna throw some money my way.. then i have no complaints!!...
seeming as ds had to go through the pain of the needles.. i will spoil him and spend all the money on him!!
when do you recieve it and how much do u get for just one child??
the nurse only mentioned it to me today..
i cant see any harm in them offering the money.. i dont feel its a bribe at all.. people will still make the right decision on there child being imunised or not having them..
id never do something just for money.. especially if it was something i was against.
exactly, Im vaxing because I believe its the best for my DD not because of the money
Absolutely. I agree with Carlia as well. I didn't even know there was a vax allowence until I joined bubhub :p
anyway.. so my ds will be having all his imunisations done.. actually had 3 needles today:crying:
Mine had his first 3 today too :( He's only just returned to his happy self now, still sleepy tho'... poor button.
jennababe
18-09-2006, 22:09
Mine had his first 3 today too :( He's only just returned to his happy self now, still sleepy tho'... poor button.
god its sad isnt it:crying:
2nd time was easier for me..
i cried at his 8 week needles.. he was pretty good after them today.. had a big sleep.. and back to his happy self and laughing all day...
my aunty does family day care.. and shes been looking after kids for 20 years.. i know that everyone does different things.. but she told me to give him the baby panadol half an hour before he has the needles done..
seems to work:thumbsup:
sorry for going of track everyone..
Pippi Longstocking
19-09-2006, 06:59
The immunisation allowance is actually just a part of the old maternity payment that was withheld until the the vaccinations were completed.
To not pay it to some mums would be discriminatory - it essentially was already theirs but just withheld.
To me, the idea of blackmailing parents into compliance is offensive and insulting. I am going to do what I feel is in the best interests of my children regardless of any cash incentive.
Duchessa, you are more than entitled to the money. You have researched, thought a lot about your decision and ultimately done what you feel is the healthiest thing for your girls. Now that is what I feel the Government should be encouraging!
Cheekychops
19-09-2006, 07:49
I received a letter from them saying they hadn't received notice of DS1's last vacc and if they didn't then I wouldn't get my money?!? Now that to may gave the impression that only vax's got it...... didn't even know there was an option..... but still would probably hav vaxed.
Very suprisingly I actually agree with Them:eek: Just kidding Them:D
I think if someone has made a well informed decision not to vax and have the conscientious objector form signed then I don't have any problem with parents receiving the money. I think that those who have been slack or lazy and just haven't bothered should not receive the money however.
If the money's just there to be given out, whether you vax or not- why call it "Immunisation Payment"?:banghead:
Just call it the Toddler Bonus and give it to all.
I did pick the first box in poll though, if it is actually an immunisation payment I think it should only go to immunised children.
Them has a point. they try and make it look like you will only get it if you vax as an insentive, especially to those who are struggling as it is.
i don't vaxx and i couldn't care less if i didn't get it but i wouldn't be stupid enough to say no to 'free money', or shoud i say the money i was entitled to to begin with.
cobysmummy
19-09-2006, 12:22
If the money's just there to be given out, whether you vax or not- why call it "Immunisation Payment"?:banghead:
Just call it the Toddler Bonus and give it to all..
i agree... i always thought that you got the "immunisation payment" when you "immunise"
but anyways... and i thought immunising was compulsary until i found bubhub :confused:
if they are going to hand it out to allvaxers and non vaxers (whatever the reason) they should change the name!! doesnt make sense to me :confused:
Duchessa
19-09-2006, 12:35
xkwzit, I totally agree with your point about morality and payment for compliance, so true.
And Them, that was a good point about withholding some of money from the other allowance... I wasn't aware that it had evolved like that - everyone should bloody get it then, no matter what their vax level or reason for not vaxing is.
The reason that I get so passionate about people knowing all about vax is that it upsets me when misinformation becomes the norm (ie you are only eligible for the immunisation allowance if you follow the schedule). Everyone should be told ALL their options when they go to get their kids vaxed. It should be a basic part of the vax education process.
If the various gov agencies and the medical fraternity were proactively open, upfront and informative about vaccination they would get a far better rap by people who choose to question it and possibly have a better uptake.
When the girls were born I signed the concientious objectors form before I had decided what we were doing about vax - it took the pressure off me to make my decision.
The immunisation allowance is actually just a part of the old maternity payment that was withheld until the the vaccinations were completed.
To not pay it to some mums would be discriminatory - it essentially was already theirs but just withheld.
To me, the idea of blackmailing parents into compliance is offensive and insulting. I am going to do what I feel is in the best interests of my children regardless of any cash incentive.
Duchessa, you are more than entitled to the money. You have researched, thought a lot about your decision and ultimately done what you feel is the healthiest thing for your girls. Now that is what I feel the Government should be encouraging!
:yes: Great post.
Like Them said, the 'immunisation allowance' is actually part of the original maternity allowance that you used to get before the $3-$4000 came into effect. When I had my first son, it was about $900 from memory, then by the time my second son came along, you got about $600, with the rest after they had had their immunisations, so whilst I agree everyone is entitled to it whether they vax or not, you have to wonder what the point of it even is anymore, seeing as the old maternity allowance has been replaced by something else :confused:
mummyof5
19-09-2006, 15:42
I agree coopsntilly, I also had the same thing happen between 1st and 2nd babies. I rang centrelink when my payment turned up to say but i didn't immunise, and they said it didn't matter, because if I had lodged my objection form (which I had done for day care), then they couldn't descriminate against me by not paying it...
I personally don't know why they don't put the money into some other helpfull things for people with kids, like maybe to help offset the cost of community preschool or some such...
Oscar's mum
19-09-2006, 15:45
So how do you get this immunisation allowance?:confused: I'm a bit slow somedays;)
CrazyBeautiful
19-09-2006, 16:18
If the money's just there to be given out, whether you vax or not- why call it "Immunisation Payment"?:banghead:
Just call it the Toddler Bonus and give it to all.
I did pick the first box in poll though, if it is actually an immunisation payment I think it should only go to immunised children.
Yep, well said!!!:thumbsup: :yes:
i don't know why they have to go and it give it a name like 'immunization allowance' when its not an allowance given for immunizing your child. are they hoping to fool a few people in the process into thinking you will only get it if you vax your kids?
Goosie22
19-09-2006, 17:03
are they hoping to fool a few people in the process into thinking you will only get it if you vax your kids?
I think that is exactly their agenda, why else would the government put it forward as such? People who take things on face value would just accept what they are told. Like newborns need to have a 4 does Hep B schedule when the adult schedule is only 3............This extra birth dose was put in place to encourage people to continue on with the schedule as printed on the government fridge magnent and in birth record book.
It doesnt take into account that a newborn cant actually make antibodies for quite sometime after birth ("immature immunine system" that is why breastfeeding is so important to gain passive immunity to diseases the mother has immunity/resistance to) so the birth injection is more or less useless as an immunisation.
To be perfectly honest I am a little surprised by the number of people (in the poll) who believe that the Immunisation payment should only be given to those who immunise. I guess that the fault lies with Centrelink who call it an Immunisation payment. As far as I can tell from the criteria of the payment, it is a payment made to anyone who has had a baby who has put some thought into immunising. I have always thought of it (like Them) as a left over bit of Maternity Allowance, because I have seen it evolve that way over my three children. I have to agree with Goosie though, it does seem to be particularly poor form by the govt to keep calling it that an insinuating it is a payment made to reward you for vaccinating.
I selectively vaccinate, and would be apalled to think that in Australia I could be discriminated against (financially or in any other fashion) for choosing one type of medical care for my family.
jessgray
20-09-2006, 09:24
i think everyone should get it. my ds1's gp has told me ds1 can not have the chicken pox needle if he has had predmix 2 weeks before he is due for it. so i may have to fill in a medical form stating why ds1 hasnt had the chickenpox needle. i really dont want ds1 to end up in hosptial with a bad case of the chicken pox after getting the needle :(
i think vaxing or not vaxing is a personal choice and no one should have the right to say who is and who isnt able to get a payment. everyone has their reasons for choosing to vax or not vax.
jessgray
20-09-2006, 09:27
How much Maternity Immunisation Allowance do I get?
This payment rate is effective from 20 September 2006. Maternity Immunisation Allowance is a non-taxable lump sum payment. It is usually paid with the next instalment of Family Tax Benefit where Family Tax Benefit is paid fortnightly and not through the tax system.
* This payment is not subject to an income test.
* This payment is not subject to an assets test.
Maternity Immunisation Allowance
$222.30 (lump sum payment)someone asked how much the payment is :) so i thought i would post this
If it really is a vaxxing allowance then pay it to the vaxxers.
If its not, then call it something else. I won't be making any effort to get it, no conscientious objection forms or anything like that, so if they give it to us then that's their lookout isn't it. I'm not vaxxing according to their schedule no matter what they pay me.
stellarella
21-09-2006, 20:40
I think it is absolutely stupid same as the baby bonus, but apparently this government considers bribes a part of being in government, so i wont say "no thank you". But it certainly wont be making me vaccinate or vote them in next time....
Duchessa
21-09-2006, 20:42
heh heh :yes::yes::yes::yes:
I don't want to open a can of worms here and please excuse me for my ignorance, but isn't it called maternity IMMUNISATION allowance? Why are non-immunised kids' parents still entitled to it???
Duchessa
21-09-2006, 21:02
This has been addressed by various posters, most succinctly by Them, I believe.
However, the short and superficial answer is available from the Centrelink website (http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/qual_how_mia.htm), as copied below (my highlights).
Who can get Maternity Immunisation Allowance?
You may get Maternity Immunisation Allowance if:
your child is fully immunised between 18 and 24 months, or
your child is on a recognised immunisation catch up schedule, or
your child has an approved exemption from being immunised, or
your child is stillborn or dies before 24 months, and
you claim on or before your child's second birthday. You may get an approved immunisation exemption for your child if you have a conscientious objection to immunisation or if there are medical reasons why your child should not be immunised.
Pippi Longstocking
21-09-2006, 21:02
Why are non-immunised kids' parents still entitled to it???
Because there are many reasons why parents can't/won't vaccinate their children and to refuse them the payment would be discriminatory, which is illegal in Australia. Hope that helps answer your question :)
Duchessa
21-09-2006, 21:04
Now that is succinct! :laughing:
Because there are many reasons why parents can't/won't vaccinate their children and to refuse them the payment would be discriminatory, which is illegal in Australia. Hope that helps answer your question :)
Fair enough - maybe they (the govt) should call it something else then!:D
I think it's a total waste of administration costs :thumbsdown: .......just give this money to everyone either at the beginning or when a child turns 2 or 3 or something....everyone is entitled to the $$ so why have this silly "Claytons payment" system at all??? It's clearly not working as an incentive - have been involved in several debates / discussions about this payment on several internet forums now and have yet to meet or even hear of a "real" case of someone saying "I wasn't going to immunise until I heard about the payment - so now I'm ensuring my kids are vaccinated as per schedule" :idea: .....so why bother with it? Then again - administering it is probably keeping quite a few people in government employment & they are entitled to jobs and also pay taxes........so lets keep the ole economy a-movin eh?!! LMAO :yelclap:
T
This whole idea of government allowances boggles me sometimes.....
It's called the immunisation allowance yet you can still get it - regardless of whether you vax or not.
They should scrap it and put the money towards science, research, hospitals, childcare, schools, education, whatever. (my opinion of this is also applies to the baby bonus). While most of us love the idea of cash in hand or lump sum payments I think it would be better off being spent elsewhere.
I orginally came from a background of science - and some of my friends are still in the field - they are the ones doing medical research, scientific studies, stem cell research, trying to find the cure for cancer, trying to find a vaccine for other diseases - yes it's controversial what they do but they are trying to help you, me, our families, our friends, our kids, our future. Give them the money to benefit their research - it's a joke on how many times their projects have been halted due to lack of funds or general respect.
ShadyCharacter
21-09-2006, 21:30
Sorry recent posters - but I disagree with you.
I have no problems with ppl who research and then choose not to vax - I can't fault anyone who makes an informed decision.
The allowance is there to prompt ppl who would vax, but "forget" about it. It is a reward for the ppl who stay on track with their decision.
I don't see why we should withhold money from a family because they have made an informed decision not to vax, talked it over with a doc and got their objection form signed.
...otherwise you are blackmailing ppl into making a decision they think is wrong, just to get that handy $500 dollars - and I think that is immoral. But that's JMO (but I do think I'm pretty objective - I do choose to vax, but I'm not entitled to, nor did I receive the allowance)
Sorry to quote the whole post, but yay! Someone who 'gets it' :smiliedance::yelclap:
The payment is NOT an incentive to vaccinate. It's an incentive to take action, rather than do nothing.
reAllytee
22-09-2006, 00:34
Totally agree with X. :D
not all the vaxs are free.
i paid for pneumoccocal and meningoccocal (this was not free when it first came out) and just this year paid $60 per shot for my 3 kids to have chicken pox vax.
i have many friends whos kids are not the age for free vaxs and they choose to pay for these shots that their younger kids are having for free.
why should non vaxers get money for not vaxing when there are people who pay for it out of their own back pockets?
why not make all the shots free for any age child and wipe the money given to parents when their child is 18 months- all the needles they have up until then are free anyway.
Duchessa
27-09-2006, 16:31
erm... the scheduled ones are free. If you choose to do ones not on the schedule that is your choice. There are lots of unscheduled vax, why do you think the tax payer should pay for these?
those THREE vaxs i said i had paid for ARE on the schedule they are FREE !!
my children are 9.5, 7.5 and 4.5 so it is not free for them. - i am paying for something that IS on the shedule and MY POINT in my last post is just that! why not make these shots free for all aged children.
and ref: to " do i think the tax payer should pay for these" yes id rather my tax go on having these three shots available for all aged children than it being paid to parents who choose not to vax.
I have a stupid question & I mean no offence, but is it you're paying for the booster shots for ur kids or ur paying for the shots that usually the kids have when they're younger? I paid for my DS1 to have the booster of chicken pox last year, 1 cos I actually cant remember if he had it - if he did he didnt complain or come out in spots! and 2, I dont want him to have any fertility problems down the track.
As for who should receive it, if ppl who dont immunise can get a certificate from the doctor & still receive it, then y is called the immunisation allowance? I understand y some ppl dont immunise but dont get y they either dont call it something else for them or call it something else for everyone.
they are not boosters.
they are the same vaxs available for free for any other child, younger than my children....and this is the ONLY difference here.
the govt has for eg: put the meninococcal on the list for babies and then a while after this had a free shot for children in certain years in schools...
mine had this vax back when it came out. they were too old then for it to be done as part of their scheduled shots so i had to pay for it... some time after this it became available through schools- me eldest had just started school by then, so there was, and still is, a group of children too old for the listed and too young for the school shots.
my eldest child nearly died from pneumococcal disease so i had my other two vaxd for it and this vax is also done for free, but again i had to pay for it because of their ages.
so i do see this "immunisation allowance" being paid to people who dont vax as waste of money....i think the money should be used to make these shots available for free for all age children... and wipe the allowance all together.
i am not the only one in my circle of friends who have kids in this limbo age group where the parents are having to pay for these shots.
i must be a slow one as i didnt even know there was an allowance HA HA HA..
but i agree if u dont vax you shouldnt get the money simple.
so i do see this "immunisation allowance" being paid to people who dont vax as waste of money....i think the money should be used to make these shots available for free for all age children... and wipe the allowance all together.
But then those who choose to not vacc or selectively vacc are being financially disadvantaged. They too pay their taxes, and the govt pays for all the other infrastructure necessary to provide for those who do vacc (vaccines, medicare rebates, public clinics, vacc register etc etc). Those who don't vacc don't use that infrastructure and don't use the vaccines. Maybe they should get a non-vacc tax rebate or something instead??
If you choose to vacc outside the schedule then it is up to you to pay. That's like me saying I'm going on holiday to Africa and taking my kids - are the govt going to pay for those vaccines too? The reason that young children are offered the meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines are because they are the ones that are at most risk of those diseases. They are offered again at the end of primary school for those who missed out because teenagers are at higher risk again. Makes sense to me.
'my_lot' thank you for ur answer. I didnt mean any offence just was curious which injections u were referring to.
I also agree about wiping the allowance and make all immunisations free to whomever walks into the Drs and wants one. Makes a whole lot of sense.
Glad ur eldest is okay though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.