Slashdot Mirror
In Australia, Immunize Or Lose Benefits
An anonymous reader writes with news of a plan from the Australian government to cut down on the number of kids who aren't vaccinated. The new scheme will deny family tax benefits to parents whose children don't pass immunization checks. Quoting:
"The FTB supplement, worth $726 per child each year, will now only be paid once a child is fully immunized at these checks. Families are already required to have their child fully immunized 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 immunized against measles, mumps and rubella earlier, at 18 months instead of the current four years of age."
So the next super bug will come from Australia?
first beotches
Rational social interest trumps irrational "self" interest, for once. The USA could learn a thing or two from Australia.
...considering that they have socialized medicine. To libertarians this probably looks like a communist nightmare, I'll admit that to me it only seems OK because I don't believe in the Right to Put Everyone In Danger By Being a Total Moron.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Get all this crazy cruft out of the tax code and then the government can't use it as a lever/hammer against you.
You make sure the children who could get sick are forced into a living condition where they will get sick.
Yes they are a bunch of idiot parents who think these vaccines will hurt their child more then will help. But by cutting them off won't change their mind, while their logic is flawed their heart is in the right place, and a lot of parents who think these will hurt their children will just suffer with less, and probably putting their child at greater risk.
Why don't we just kill all the poor people. At least that way you not being hypocritical.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
And at the border they insisted that one had all the documentation for shots and what not, and this one woman said she didn't know that was a prerequisite for entering the country and started crying and saying she'd do anything to get in and the guards motioned to several australian citizens and they unzipped their pants and proceeded to bukkake her and claimed that through their immunizations, she was immunized too. I'd rather just get my shots.
Child Care Benefit ... Child Care Rebate
Bunch of parents voting themselves more bennies. Comes with strings. Obey your owners.
Vaccines may not cause autism, but the hygiene hypothesis remains a scientifically valid concern (so far as I know). This sounds like Australians are vaccinating children for everything they possibly can. Couple the heavy vaccination schedule with advances in food safety and constant household cleaning; these kids might have little besides flu and rhinovirus to train their immune systems, and that doesn't seem like a sustainable course.
People are going to learn to do what they are fucking told when the government fucking tells them.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I am confused as to why there is this fetish for forced immunization (other than the obvious benefit to the pharma making the immunization shots)? Surely evolution will take care of everything when the epidemic hits, if those shots are worthwhile?
In this specific case just look at Michele Bachmann's PUBLIC statement about how some woman told her that an immunization caused "mental retardation".
Belief that there is a problem with immunizations is not an economic class issue. Bachmann certainly isn't poor.
What "government"? Are you even Australian?
At least here in Scandinavia, the government is not the enemy, it represents us and our shared interests. Many Americans seem to think their negative view is the "universal" truth. It is most certainly not.
On the other hand we allow individuals to choose what immunizations they want their children to get. It just happens that most people actually trust our government, universal health care system and science; the majority of people choose to get all immunizations offered.
That is all.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
that which puts me and my children in danger- not getting vaccinated, is not a natural freedom.
The problem with the definition of freedom, as defined by teenagers (not chronological teenagers, but psychological teenagers) is that it does not take into account how some "freedoms" naturally and automatically impinge on the freedoms of others.
For example: your freedom to play your music as loud as you want, my freedom to get a good night's sleep. Your freedom to consume nicotine, my freedom to breathe clean air when I walk down the sidewalk. You freedom to talk on your cellphone, my freedom to enjoy a movie. Etc.
If you claim as a right or freedom that which impinges on someone else's rights or freedoms, without even considering the possibility, you aren't selfish. You're just stupid: you don't know what freedom really is. To you, it is "let me do whatever I want without consideration of effects or consequences." That is "freedom" as defined by an ignorant teenager (again, not a chronological teenager, a psychological one, who could be of any age), and has absolutely nothing to do with the real fight for freedom in this world by real freedom fighters, who are often quoted by people who don't even know what freedom really is.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Actually, there is only one rational outcome here. And the basis for that is in your previous statement.
Which means that in order for child A to avoid the vaccination "safely", someone must guarantee that children B - Z are vaccinated.
While it may be a correct mathematical statement reflecting the spread of infection, it is not a "rational" approach to immunization. If everyone followed that, then none of the children would be immunized. If 50% of the population followed that then the diseases would still be a problem. And so forth.
if you want the free benefits from society then you have to live up to expectations. It's your choice as to immunisation or not, but you are making a decision for your child, not for yourself, and so it is reasonable to want to protect your child from potentially fatal diseases, and teach them to swim, and to look before crossing the road. As many of these diseases can be passed on to others, it's also a community issue.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
If she didn't already go around foaming at the mouth, this would certainly light her off. I've got to check on Peter Bowditch [ratbags.com] more often; he's going to have a blast covering this.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
If people cannot afford to have offspring, DON'T FUCKING FUCK.
I'm sick of it when I''m just sitting there reading some stuff, then I see about benefits abuse by families who have like 10 damn kids or some other extreme.
Seriously, the first person to make androids that simulate babies and all their learning, but never grows up, they will be trillionaires.
So many people out their are so messed up in the head that they just want a cute little baby, then it grows up, "oh, bored of it now, unf", out comes another baby, rinse and repeat. It is absolutely sickening behaviour that is enforced by governments all around the world.
Worse still, benefits abuse for the sake of the money and NOT for the children. Poor kids sitting there without a decent standard of living because the corrupt parent is taking all their money for drugs, alcohol or some other wasteful crap.
I hate society sometimes. I really do. Sometimes I'd welcome an asteroid collision. Sometimes.
If millions of years of mammalian immune systems getting infected haven't done it yet, a few decades of a few billion humans reducing the number of pathogens which are exposed to them isn't going to.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
good idea. as long as disease carriers (not "tax paying humans" that is) are eradicated also. .. not a filthy pharmaceutical paradise?
the goal should be a healthy world, free of disease
So if you have enough money to not need government healthcare you have more freedoms then a poorer person? Makes great sense to me!
You are in the minority in Scandinavia and you know it. You clearly don't have the balls to discuss it openly, coward.
It's already happened.
As usual, the rich don't have to bother.
"up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and measels occurred before the introduction of immunisations and antibiotics." DR. ARCHIE KALOKERINOS, M.D. PhD
Scarlet fever was in existence at the same time and at the same levels as whooping cough, measels, and polio. Incidents of scarlet fever interestingly dropped off at the same rate as the others and we never vaccinated for scarlet fever. Dr. Robyn Cosford
It was the improved standard of living, increased sanition, better nutrition that caused the drop in disease. Not vaccinations.
There are many vaccine related deaths every year. "In 1978 a childhood immunisation initiative was begun. Individual states passed legislation requiring proof of immunisation for school entry at 5 and 6 years of age. They mandated vaccination and it resulted in a three fold increase in the reported incident of whooping cough and indeed children developed whooping cough from the vaccines." Dr. Vera Schiebner
The CDC reported a measles outbreak in a 100% documented vaccinated population. Studies show that children who recieved vaccinations were 14 times more likely to become learning disabled and develop asthma. There is virtually no asthma in unvaccinated children. Unvaccinated people are healthier, have higher disease resistance , and recover more rapidly from illness. There have never been any safety studies done on vaccines that would meet the appropriate criteria. Donald Meserlian P.E. VOSI Chairman, & ASTM Member
It only cuts off benefits for not getting it. If you don't need the benefits, then you effectively are not required to get immunization.
The basic message is "Poor people need to be immunized, not rich people."
The existing system that the article refers to is flawed in reality, as people who don't believe in vaccination can still claim the allowance and benefits by citing discrimination. It's common enough that pre natal classes tell you how.
So this scheme will fail due to the same reason.
"Libertarians, who, let's face it, are either morons or sociopaths"
Right, because the government's will trumps any sort of idea that you can make choices for you or your children.
Seriously fuck you just because you claim anybody who disagrees with your viewpoint is a moron or a sociopath.
I won't call you names, but you're exactly the kind of person who should never be in charge of anything for any reason.
The root justification for all those family/children benefits is usually economic.
Population growth translates into GDP growth.
Tax benefits are doled out to encourage population growth.
I'm not saying it is good or bad.
Just saying that is usually the actual reason.
Assuming there are reasonable exceptions for people unable to receive vaccinations (allergies, immune system problems, etc.), this seems like an example for other countries to follow.
...poor old Australia - even yoghurt has a culture.
I couldn't believe when the immigration officer asked me if I had a criminal record when arriving in Sydney - I asked "why? Are they still required for entry to Australia?" - no sense of humour some people!
Thanks - I'll be here all weekend - remember to tip your waitress!
Demographically, at least in Sydney, the well-to-do types are less likely to immunise as they are more likely to believe in new agey fairy floss and the "evils" of vaccination. The people who are on benefits are actually more likely to immunise their children in the first place
"Society isn't going to pay and reward them to exercise that right."
You do realize that first the taxes are taken from the family, the only question is how much of THIER OWN MONEY the government decides to hand back...
At least that is my reading of "Tax Benefit". If the government is truly handing out other tax payers money instead, they should be able to place whatever onerous restrictions they like upon it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That word - it does not mean what you think it means.
"Fascism" can hardly be present when someone is arguing to NOT force someone to do something.
You are arguing the case that people should be forced to do something "for their own and everyone else's good". Perhaps you are even right; fine, but at least admit to who is the fascist in this situation.
You can't have it both ways.
Fascism is and always will be at heart a progressive/liberal creature, since they are the ones at heart with the drive and desire to control what other people do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Poor people who rely on the money are effectively required to get immunizations for their children, while rich people have no real increased incentive to immunize their children.
I could look at the thinking behind this many different ways, and none of them are good.
Is that if you have a medical exception, or conscientious objector that needs a Dr to sign, you will still get your benefits.
From:
http://immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/faq-related-payments#immunised
"What exemptions will be available for the new immunisation conditions linked to the Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement?
While the Government considers that immunisation is an important health measure for children and families, existing exemptions will continue to be available.
A child may have a temporary or permanent exemption if a recognised immunisation provider determines that receiving the vaccine is medically contraindicated. A child may also receive an exemption from the immunisation requirements if a recognised immunisation provider indicates that the parent has a conscientious objection to immunising their child.
These exemptions will also continue for Child Care Benefit. "
They also do not mention any additional ingredients of these vaccines. But that is another story.
-- "Perceptions create reality. By changing your perceptions you change your reality."
I live in France, where you can't get kids into kindergarten or school without vaccination certificates. And they cut child benefit too. The result is a very high vaccination rate, and that protects those who cannot be vaccinated such as very young children.
Virtually serving coffee
there is always a definite percentage of vaccines that don't take. it is a game of statistics, you are protected by what is called herd immunity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
basically, when you choose not to get vaccinated, you are freeloading on herd immunity to protect you. problem is, if enough people do that, past a certain threshold, there is no more herd immunity, and people will get sick. including people who got properly immunized, since not all immunizations take
so depending upon the disease, because some low iq idiot parent didn't get their kids vaccinated, some other perfectly good girl or boy whose parents were completely responsible, will die anyways
chooosing not to get vaccinated is not a choice you can make in a vacuum of other people's rights and freedoms. your choice has an impact on others, and if you choose stupidly, you can kill other people. therefore, it si perfectl moral, logical, and 100% in line with a MATURE philosophical conception of freedom, to force people to get vaccinated. not getting vaccinated impinges on the rights and freedoms of others
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's wrong to force people to give up their money it taxes for whatever socialist health insurance/care system they are running there if they are then not allowed to use it.
My question: is there a 2 tier health care / insurance system in Australia? At least a 2 tier system is a step in the right direction from a single government dictated tier system.
Is it possible to opt out of other government programs there and can one reduce the taxes by opting out?
The idea is correct: people should have the option and not to be forced into anything like a vaccination, and then the system shouldn't be responsible for the people who opt out. But they shouldn't be forced to pay into that system either.
You can't handle the truth.
i support your demonization of rush limbaugh, but you have no right to piss on the national pride of the dominican republic, you who speak of "facts"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The Benito ways of the Australians are disgusting, but fascinating.
Most pro-vaccine alarmists haven't read any of the excellent critiques out there. I have yet to meet a pro-vaccine person who really understands the debate. Most simply dismiss anything that doesn't confirm their biases. (And yes, the same is true with most anti-vaccine alarmists.)
Is ignorance really an issue? Nobody seems to care when ignorant people conform in their views. It's only when people don't conform that "ignorance" is suddenly a problem. Then the hysterical alarmist mantra begins... obviously appealing to our highest critical thinking centers.
Vaccinating is at least as dangerous as not vaccinating due to low disease rates, based on mainstream numbers. Check out the CDC's page on vaccination risks. Measles? Mumps? I have to vaccinate against that? I have to vaccinate against a disease that has only 2000 cases reported worldwide? I have to vaccinate a newborn against an STD? (Even my staunchly pro-vaccine doctor disagreed with that one!) Seriously people.
Having read most of these comments, I am frankly appalled. The arguments being given for government-mandated vaccinations are as bad or worse than the ones being given for any number of things we can all agree are bad (surveillance, secret databases, security checks). Either people do not realize, or do not care, that they are in fact trampling on personal rights just as badly as those they criticize.
That leads me to wonder what the difference is. Is it because vaccination is "science"? Science that every once in a while comes under attack by the extreme right? If that's the only reason these "social good" arguments are now valid, when they are in truth just as valid now as in every other case (ie, valid arguments, but do not outweigh personal liberty), it's frightening.
I'm not anti-vaccination, but I am getting there, if only because of the lengths people seem willing to go to advocate further government control regarding them and silence anyone who even seems to disagree. The posts in this discussion make me feel we really do not have many "free thinkers" here and that on the whole, they're just as susceptible to the same scare tactics and small-mindedness as the right.
Great Intellect...
In Austria where I live we have a similar system. In order to receive your money you have to go to the doctor and get a special card stamped. This ensures that all small children are checked out by a doctor frequently during their first few months of life.
Usually you would also get all the vaccinations during those visits. However as far as I know you would also get a stamp
If you went to the doctor and refused to get your child vaccinated or it didn't get vaccinated for some other reason.(eg beening allergic to the vaccine etc.) I think this way of doing it is much better, since it ensures that practically all children get vaccinated and also preserves your personal liberties. It is just stupid to require vaccination since this is completely inflexible. There are many cases where it might actually be in your child's interest not to get vaccinated. Sure vaccines are a great thing and usually prevent your child from getting sick, but your doctor should know better in your specific case it might be bad.
Don't like it - get fake immunization certs. They are asking for it!
Rational social interest trumps irrational "self" interest, for once.
Except in the case of the chicken pox vaccine which, unlike catching the disease, fails to confer lifelong immunity in all cases resulting in increasing evidence for a rise in the rate of shingles (which is far nastier than chicken pox) in adults for populations where the vaccine has been introduced. Given that the rate of complications from the disease in children is comparable to the rate of complications from the vaccine the primary argument for the vaccine has been that it saves money in terms of lost productivity due to child care. Sorry but while I am a big fan of vaccines in general saving money by vaccinating against a very mild childhood disease at the cost of an increased risk of a nasty adult disease is arguably not rational.
I understand penalising the child care benefit/rebate is for lower/middle class who use child care so they can work, also child care centres would be hotspots for virii. But why penalize FTB A, (calculated on total family income) and not ftb b (calculated on lowest householders income). From my understanding it would affect more families (which imho is a good thing).
Dr. Hadwen:
"No European country has had such severe vaccination laws as Germany. They started in 1834, and enforced continual re-vaccinations. Yet in 1871-2 smallpox carried off no fewer than 124,948 in Prussia alone. In Berlin itself there were 17,038 vaccinated cases of smallpox, of whom 2,240 were under ten years of age, and of these vaccinated children 736 died.
A particularly interesting case is that of the Philippines. When these islands fell into the hands of the Americans a vast vaccination scheme was carried out, and smallpox, which had naturally been a scourge among the inhabitants owing to the bad sanitary conditions, declined just in proportion as these were remedied. The result was, of course, put down to vaccination, though there is a certain humour in the circumstance that, while the natives were suffering less from smallpox, the vaccinated arid re-vaccinated American soldiers fell victims to it, dying at a percentage three times higher than that which obtained among the unvaccinated people they had come to instruct. Of course, the usual thorough system of cleansing, finding its parallel later in the Panama region, was pursued, and for many years it was the great boast of the disciples of Jenner that smallpox was banished from the Philippines.
They boasted too soon. Within the last few years, in spite of the rigorous vaccination laws, the disease has regained its old virulence, and there were no fewer than 60,612 cases and 43,294 deaths from smallpox in the Philippines during 1919—an enormous toll in a population of something under 11,000,000."
Oh no! Scary FACTS! We can't think for ourselves! We're 'good' people if we go along with Big Pharma, the TV said so!
"When people are willingly forgoing vaccinations, you aren't just putting yourself at risk, you are dropping the total percent of the population that is at risk. As that number drops further and further, the easier it is for the virus to spread into an outbreak. The more a virus spreads, the higher likelihood it will have a chance to mutate into a form the existing vaccine does not protect against. In other words, when they chose not to get vaccinated, they are putting all the rest of us at risk out of their own stupidity."
Duh, but if 'vaccination' works, then won't the 'vaccinated' be immune to the disease? Or are you laughably admitting that 'vaccination' doesn't actually WORK?
Still waiting for somebody to show us HOW 'vaccines' are made, and WHAT they are made FROM...
did it ever occur to you that is the other way around, and that the vaccines are not only ineffective, but also lead to disease ?
where do you take your scietific data ? mainstream media and pharm company paid studies ?
good luck, your kids I'm sure will be grateful once the whole pharma scam comes to light.
There are a number of things to say about this.. and I will note first that I am an Australian - and I have lived and worked in the USA, in Asia, in Europe (France and Switzerland) and travelled to many other countries.
Most of the western world see providing some kind of universal health care not as Communism - but as basic humanity AND as a requirement of Christian and / or liberal values. (That is Christians support it - left OR right wing - because its seen as the Christian thing to do - and the left to centre thinkers - non - christian - support it also so most countries have it - at some level - as they can afford. Its just the USA where its equated - to the rest of the worlds BEMUSEMENT - with communism)
In Australia we have a hybrid system - public healthcare - which is free and available to all (- well citizens and permanent residents etc) and is paid for by taxes and a levy. And a Private system - paid for by the individual.
Some things are better done in the private system - some are better done in the public. Its not perfect - and we struggle for money... but its not a bad system. On the world stage - it would be one of the better ones. Not the best - but definately in the top 20 - maybe the top 10 or higher again.
Its not communism - and in fact its good economics and its good christianity.
I have a fatal disease. Treatable. In the USA - most people with that disease Die. Because the HMO dont like to pay that money. (The USA stats are appalling actually)
Here - I was treated.... the disease is in remission - Im in the work force - Ive actually paid back in taxes the money the government spent on my.... plus more.... Plus i do volunteer work etc - Ive worked for the UN around the world - Ive become an asset to my society and others..
So and in fact - my family arent dealing with my death etc - so they are more productive - all up - a huge plus....
So my point is - the health system in aus - works really well.
The immunisation is is another example.
I remember the Polio epidemic. And I've seen the damage polio and measles can do.
We had virtually eradicated them in australia - and them so dingbat in the UK broke the ethical boundaries and lied - and issued a study linking autism to vaccination. so a number of parents stopped vaccinating. and so these diseases gained a foothold again. And so in the last few years Children have Died and been crippled and gone blind in Australia - where these diseases had been forgotten because their parents worried about a debunked study - which purported to show a LOWER risk of autism than the real risk of these diseases. And the parents were shocked because they didnt know about those diseases anymore... because everyone was vaccinated - we never saw them.
Unfortunately - the effect of that study lingers on... and parents are STILL not vaccinating (and then are desolate when their children die or are crippled for life or are blinded for life ) and that is why this change has come in....
Its critical that vaccination rates stay high....
and there are a small number of people that cant be vaccinated for medical reasons (they have allergic reactions)....
so to Keep them safe EVERYONE else must be vaccinated because they cant be. I cant go around storing Weapons grade plutonium unshielded in my backyard (in the city). Is it an infringement of my rights that I cant be a danger to others. In part - the reason for doing this is to not be a danger to others.
Also, as an adult - you can decide to be a nutter and just take homepathic remedies or just pray for healing - but as a child - the right of a parent to abuse the child needs to be limited. My parents used to starve me and have me exorcised of the demons of television. They now admit they were way wrong and believed in crazy
Unfortunately, it seems that this won't change anything. Parents will still easily be able to opt their children out of getting vaccinated, and still get the money.
There's a good article about it here:
http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2011/11/govt-fail-win-for-anti-vax-lobby.html
Pharma and governments are used to doing this to prisoners, so trying this shit on a former penal colony that basically has no concept of personal freedoms makes perfect sense. I'm sure their vaccination list includes Ofit's diarrhea vaccine that he oh so ethically rammed through while he was at the CDC.
proof of intelligence and a genuine mature understanding of freedom is deciding wisely when one freedom gives way to another. to choose freedom of religion, selfishly and idiotically, over the freedom to live, and for others to live, free from disease, is proof that you are morally and intellectually immature and have not given much thought to the nature of freedom or are unable to give much thought, period
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No such thing as vaccine resistant.
Yes there is - vaccines can be weak strains of a bug which provoke an immune response without causing the disease. If the original bug diverges enough from the weak strain used in the vaccine it could, in theory, become "vaccine resistant". Of course I would imagine that it has to diverge more than it would for a simple anti-biotic because your body can adapt (an expert would have to confirm this) but I don't see why divergence away from a vaccine strain would not occur.
You don't actually *have* to immunize for this rule. You can opt to go to your doctor and have them sign something saying you've fronted up and refused.
What you can't do is just 'forget' to do it and expect to recieve benifits.
I think that's fair, even to the loonies that are anti-immunization because it kills whales.
Not sure about the current scheme, but previous immunisation schemes in Australia allowed you to submit an objection (on medical, religious, or any other grounds) and still get the Social Security / Tax benefits. Most people don't really care, but now that there is a financial incentive, the proportion of people fully immunised have gone from about 50% in the 90s to over 90% now. It is easier for these people to get their kids immunised than to write a letter. For anyone who has a real objection, or is just nutty, there is an alternative.
As a child brought up as a Jehovahs witness (Not one any more) I had all my vaccines and never heard of any problem with them from the religion.
Assume:
A vaccination prevents you from getting a disease that I may carry.
You bought a vaccination.
Prove :
Why you should care if I carry said disease in your presence or not?
Logic! Logic? Logic has no place where pharma's profits are concerned. "It's too big to fail."
It is common to see these types of responses every time vaccines are mentioned. I am hoping at least some of you on both sides of this argument will take some time and read up. This site is a bunch of doctors and researchers who evaluate medical interventions (not just vaccinations)
http://www.cochrane.org/
I spend countless hours reading there since I came across the site a few years ago. Not all vaccines work. Most of the "research" has serious design and methodology flaws. Having the government decide which vaccines you have to get is having the large corporations who make the vaccines decide. A huge conflict of interest.
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004879/vaccines-for-preventing-influenza-in-healthy-children
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD005187/influenza-vaccination-for-healthcare-workers-who-work-with-the-elderly
The biggest problem is the faulty assumption that all vaccines work. They do not. So once people find that out they assume that all the vaccines are worthless and throw the baby out with the bathwater. If the vaccine makers and medical establishment would quit refusing to address the concerns raised by serious researchers, on the influenza vaccine for instance, then they would have to answer why they pushed it so hard for so long.
Follow the money.
Cheers all and happy reading over the holidays
PS. Remember to take your vitamin D as it does work better than vaccination against the flu.
Freedom is not doing whatever you like, freedom is the absence of oppression.
If everyone understood that, and understood respect (for self and for others) then our world would be much less dysfunctional.
(In short: Yes, I agree with you.)
"annoy the target but don't annoy it enough to be considered a primary threat"?
aren't colds caused by a variety of similar viruses? so immunity to one doesn't protect you from the rest?
P.S.
I wouldn't go into work with a cold. infectiousness aside, I figure I wouldn't be clearheaded enough to focus on work.
half-effort sometimes isn't better than nothing at all.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Then the law would simply require everyone to be immunized.
That they take this backdoor route shows that either they don't think they could survive a challenge by the rich, or that they don't think their constitution would allow for a straightforward mandate.
Neither is good. The first shows they don't mind trampling the poor as long as they don't piss off the rich. The second shows they don't mind violating their constitution by backdoor means.
Somber days are coming.
You can see Live Stream NFL Football Games Please visit our website. With the entire best Link to live Stream. There are exclusive extra links available in our Website. We hope you will enjoy our website and visit all time.
http://livestreamsportsall.blogspot.com/2011/11/watch-live-nfl-football-stream-online.html
I think national health benefits should be available only to those who do not smoke and whose weight is below the obese BMI threshold. Smoking and obesity by far are the number one causes of health problems and thus health costs. I am not saying smokers and obese cannot buy their own health insurance. The government should also ration every kind of sweetener. Call me a communist. Diabetes is a huge contributor to health costs and it's growing.
"The only criterion they don't meet is that they sell out to the wealthy capitalists too often, but if they continue to embrace the Tea Party, they'll end up meeting that criterion as well."
If you look up the actual classical definition of "fascism", you will find that this meets the definition very closely indeed. In fact, it probably fits even more closely than other items in your list. You see, fascism is the government working hand in glove with business. In fascism, government does nothing that business does not like. It doles out generous tax breaks and eliminates regulations.
They would get better reception if they raised taxes across the board, and then offered a tax break for families with immunized children. Exactly the same result, but it's phrased as a reward rather than a punishment.
Same scheme would work in other contexts too:
If Obama's health care plan gave people a tax break to people with health insurance, instead of fining people without it, then there would be no danger of a constitutional challenge.
Airlines are always aiming for the smallest list price, but given how people feel about them they could really take an alternative tack: include everything in the cost, but give discounts to people without checked luggage, people who sit in the cramped seats, people who are willing to board the plane last, etc. All of a sudden, you're the airline that is *giving* money away, instead of nickel-and-diming everybody, so that even if your prices are a little higher you will have built up goodwill.
In the event everyone else vaccinates their children, there's little to no chance of one unvaccinated child contracting the illness that the vaccine confers immunization against. On the other hand, historically, some vaccines carried real risks, which were nonetheless far preferable to, say, smallpox. In the case of potentially dangerous vaccines (ignoring for the moment whether or not such dangers are real), if widespread vaccination reduces the risk of disease to a certain threshold, it would at some point be optimal to refrain from vaccinating one's child. The important thing to notice is that while this may be optimal behavior for each concerned parent, it might result in higher risk of an epidemic.
The government's role is to enforce coordination so that no one cheats by refusing vaccination and everyone benefits from the reduced incidence of disease.
You anti-vax retard.
Go peddle your pseudoscience someplace else, dipshit.
Zomg, think of the children.
Your freedom to protect your children using any means necessary, my freedom to walk down the sidewalk without some zealot mother/father shooting me;
Your freedom to post on the internet, my freedom to not have my bandwidth stolen by invalid posts;
Your freedom to make invalid arguements, my freedom to not have my time wasted;
Your entire post is predicated on invalid arguements (think of the children) and invalid logic (your active freedom doesn't trump my passive freedom).
The persons who voted you insightful failed predicate logic.
There would be no backdoor if:
1) the government were honest
2) it thought it could get away with it without the rich punishing those in power
3) it were constitutional
In other words, this is something the government knows it shouldn't be doing.