+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In the sticks!!
    Posts
    20,635
    Thanks
    3,222
    Thanked
    2,540
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts

    Default "Reforms to increase immunisation" remove incentive. Sorry, what?

    It's still attached to child care benefit. Most people use child care at sometime so anyone wanting a co formed sign would have to see a doctor for this reason anyway. I think the Mia was silly personally.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    115
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    43
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by headoverfeet View Post
    Or are you cracking the sads that youve lost your MIA payment?
    No, as I said in the start of the thread, it doesn't make a difference to us. I support immunisation 100%, always have, always will. I would immunise regardless of payment to us, or even whether there was a cost to us (I am contemplating a booster of varicella vaccine for DD1 at the moment actually, given new evidence that it provides better long term protection, and this would be at our cost; I have had DD1 immunised against influenza as well though that was funded at least this year).

    The Centrelink letter was very brief and did not provide any further information except that we won't get MIA for DD2. Their assertion that their "reforms" would improve immunisation rates therefore seemed to have no basis because key information was missing. I wasn't aware of the additional linked payment to FTB because we don't receive it so your clarification was quite useful, thanks.

    I flicked off the email to Centrelink because I genuinely wanted to understand how they are operating to improve immunisation rates - for personal and professional interest. Should have come to bubhub first!

    And I got to wondering whether incentive payments actually make a difference to people's actions with respect to immunisation anyway, since they don't really to us. I don't have a problem with payments going to those who really need it - middle class welfare and all that. CPPL on the other hand - glad they haven't axed that (but that's another thread!).

  3. #13
    headoverfeet's Avatar
    headoverfeet is offline The truth will set you free, but first it will **** you off. -Gloria Steinem
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    18,954
    Thanks
    3,142
    Thanked
    4,892
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week

    Default "Reforms to increase immunisation" remove incentive. Sorry, what?

    Payments make no difference to me (were non vaxxers) still wouldn't do it if it meant I didn't get any $.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,805
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts

    Default "Reforms to increase immunisation" remove incentive. Sorry, what?

    Quote Originally Posted by headoverfeet View Post
    Payments make no difference to me (were non vaxxers) still wouldn't do it if it meant I didn't get any $.
    This is what I think would be the attitude of most non vaxxers. I don't think anyone bases their decision on the money IYKWIM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    115
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked
    43
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by headoverfeet View Post
    Payments make no difference to me (were non vaxxers) still wouldn't do it if it meant I didn't get any $.
    Yes on reflection I think that "incentive" payments probably only influence a small number of people who don't have strong views either way - and as a PP said, perhaps "encourage" people to get it done on time. My experience of BH is that there aren't too many fence sitters around here!!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    406
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked
    172
    Reviews
    0

    Default "Reforms to increase immunisation" remove incentive. Sorry, what?

    I don't think the money makes a difference either way for the truly committed.
    I do think that any child who is not fully immunized should be excluded from school/daycare etc in the event of an outbreak until it is over. For some people that would be a greater incentive :-) and safer for everyone.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13,067
    Thanks
    9,846
    Thanked
    12,959
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week

    Default "Reforms to increase immunisation" remove incentive. Sorry, what?

    The government is short on funds and have better things to spend money on, other than bribing parents to do what's best for their kids.

    Parents should take responsibility for their kids and not expect the government to hold their hands the whole way.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    10,583
    Thanks
    3,231
    Thanked
    6,566
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts

    Default "Reforms to increase immunisation" remove incentive. Sorry, what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zabella View Post
    I don't think the money makes a difference either way for the truly committed.
    I do think that any child who is not fully immunized should be excluded from school/daycare etc in the event of an outbreak until it is over. For some people that would be a greater incentive :-) and safer for everyone.
    They are excluded for 5 days I think - or my nephew was 3 years ago with a kid in his class got whopping cough - 3 kids that were not immunised were sent home for 5 days

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    260
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked
    69
    Reviews
    0
    Actually, losing the MIA *has* influenced me: not to avoid vaccinating, since I will not do that anyway.
    But I'm less likely to stick strictly to the schedule now- not if it's inappropriate/inconvenient for me or my family.
    Just telling it like it is.
    Last edited by really old; 08-11-2012 at 19:53. Reason: typo

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    406
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked
    172
    Reviews
    0

    Default "Reforms to increase immunisation" remove incentive. Sorry, what?

    It is good to hear there is some exclusion in place but 5 days is a bit short. The incubation period for Whooping Cough is 6 to 20 days. Children would need to be excluded for 3 weeks after the last known case to be sure they weren't incubating the disease!
    Last edited by Zabella; 08-11-2012 at 20:27.


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Baby U & The Wiggles - Toilet Training ProductsToilet training can be a testing time but Baby U is there to assist you and your toddler with the daunting task of ...
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Food supplements for kidsGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
TTC later in the yearConception & Fertility General Chat
Seeking advice on more kidsGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
IUI - first time fertility treatmentNon-IVF fertility assistance
IVF babies due Sep/Oct/Nov 2017pregnancy and babies through IVF
@Nattie84General Chat
REVIEWS
"Pigeon teats rule!"
by Alex
Pigeon PP Wide Neck reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›