Double post
Double post
I'm not so much angered, as offended. 50 years ago I would've been stuck in the abusive relation I left 18 months ago. 1, women were allowed to be treated that way & 2, I would never have been able to support my children alone with out centrelink.:
I know you refered to 'middle class' people, but I don't see myself as lower class. I don't live 'lower class' but if it wasn't for FTB supplements etc, I wouldn't have what I have & I wouldn't be able to do the things I do with/for my kids.
No Internet isn't a necessity, but I believe if it wasn't available my kids would be extremely disadvantaged in this day & age. You can't get through school these days without it & it's not easy to pay to use it where it's available to the public, as you are on limited time & it's very over priced.
I have friends on single parenting who made the choice not to immunise based on their own research & ill be asking how they feel about this. I know they certainly appreciate those payments, and I'm not sure it'll be worth going against what they believe for that money.
I immunise, but not for chicken pox. My 2 youngest are considered not up to date. I only recently found out I may need a CO form. For one shot.
Now I guess I will be reconsidering. I really don't know what choice ill make.
I have no comment on PPL, but I'm not sure women should be entitled to the same as they would've made working... I'm just not sure that's fair. The rest of us are on a limited entitlement, based on house hold income. I'm not that those on much higher incomes already should be more entitled.
Yes it's my choice not to live on a higher income. But in my position now, it would not be possible to change that.
Rowellen, I tend to agree with you. No one came to my family's aid when illness forced me out of work for 18 months. Our need @ that time was far greater than when I went on (partially funded by baby bonus) maternity leave.
People can ramble on all they like about mortgages and school fees, but at the end of the day I would prefer to see a funding system where a large number of people have access to an amount of money that is reasonable for the "average" household. If higher-earning women feel torridly disadvantaged by this model, perhaps they should lean on their "high calibre" employers to make up the difference.
@ Surprised: No anger here. I agree more with your opinion as expressed the 2nd time than the first. :) But I vehemently disagree as to the necessity of internet access... it's not really sorta optional anymore. Even basic government services are now adopting Internet-based delivery models now.
Anyhoo, that's my tangent for the day. Back to vax policies now...
Lol at 'high calibre' employers, Marydean. My 'high calibre' employer (i.e. the one that pays me enough that I am not eligible for government assistance, for working my butt off at 3am and on Sundays) openly loathes the fact that those irritating women they are forced to employ so as not to discriminate expect to work alternate duties whilst pg, take maternity leave and then, heavens to Betsy, return to work part time on - gasp! - set shifts as opposed to a rotating roster. I could lean on them all I like, but then only thing I would get is bullied out of a job.
Nickle, I wonder where they think their workforce will come from down the track if these kinds of working arrangements aren't made? (Or even now frankly, given low unemployment rates).
Ok, so I was borrowing that terminology from Mr A. But I still stand by my assertion that a more equitable model is to spread a more modest payment as far as possible, and sink the balance of funds into decent childcare and other workplace measures that provide more tangible incentives for women to remain in the workforce.:
I totally agree PPL is pretty worthless if childcare is unaffordable and inaccessible. I do think it shouldn't be a blanket payment like it is currently but I am not convinced that TA or the Greens (essentially the same but Greens cap at 100K) have the best option either. Maybe more like the UK where is percentage of income for 3 months etc etc as mentioned previously by TFB (should include super whatever). Also if you are going to cap it should be on combined not primary care giver - if the idea holds that after a certain amount of money you don't need it then surely the family income not just one of you matters - then also single higher income parents are less disadvantaged. The fact that none of the parties are looking at childcare is extremely disappointing - whatever you get for while on leave, childcare costs are a massive disincentive to returning to work. Give people PPL but then freeze CCR till 2017 I can't see the logic. Most studies have shown that PPL doesn't lead to big increase in birth rate but have shown childcare affordability and accessibility having a positive impact on women working (and tax paying) and isn't that what the end game is - adequate number of children being born and increase in participation of women in workplace (who are earning super in addition to paying tax so therefore less likely to be a burden on system in old age). The lack of holistic policy from anyone really annoys me and smacks of them thinking is a vote winner rather than really believing in what they are doing.:
Here is a link to a thread which has details of PPL in some different countries
https://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums...2/#post3352531
As one of the commentators have mentioned on the ABC page linked on the OP...this is a policy aimed at the families that have been found (upper middle class constituencies in the most part) to have low vaccination rates in their postcodes. i remember an article posted here (??) on BB that showed the affluent suburbs in Sydney etc that had dropping vaccination rates. I wonder if this is just a headline grubbing policy announcement that is to stick it to those upper middle class families? Of course, it doesnt even begin to acknowledge those below those income thresholds...'cause they don't count dontcha know?!
I do wonder how effective such a policy is though?? I mean really? Will it change my decisions? Certainly not. It might change (force even) some families to make a choice they otherwise wouldnt of made, but would this be statistically significant to vaccination rates and outbreak risks? (genuine question here BTW).
As an aside, i do love the haters comments on parents that make the choice to not vaccinate...name calling such as 'stupid' followed by comments such as 'they risk my kids' etc...i find it funny in a context where at mothers group the other day a mum brought her 2 year old who was showing early chicken pox signs (his big brother has it) and allowed him (before informing us about said chicken pox) to play with my unvaccinated 9 month old (just an aside, even if we were to vaccinate against CP it is given at 18 months). this mum preceeded to yap on about how some hippy unvaccinated kid gave it to her vaccinated sons and how irresponsible she was...i was like: 'uuhhhh, what do you mean your DS has CP??'. she was of the belief that by her son being vaccinated that he wouldnt be contagious. I wanted to laugh...but then saw him smooching on my 9 month old lol.
I had to listen to an hours worth of crap related back to that irresponsible non-vaxxing mother while gently explaining that she should take her DS home and keep him away from my baby. :wall:
Overall there needs to be better education about what vaccination actually means. I think it would be beneficial when getting your kids a vaccination (be it at the GP or at the MCH run ones) for there to be a flyer that explains that your child can still get the disease...albeit in much much milder forms and that it can still be spread. Also it should include what to look out for in terms of CP in vaccinated children. For example this mum had her son at school with the disease for 2 days (with blisters) as she didnt recognised what a vaccinated bout of CP actually looks like...she explained that it looked simply like mozzie bites and he only had about 2-3 on his collarbone and 20 or so on his back (once she looked).
Agree 100% with the need for better messages surrounding both vaccination and childhood illnesses.
FWIW I'm not sure that this policy is fully aimed at the upper middle constituencies that you identified... I imagine some of those families are not eligible for FTB bonuses, and if they are then probably less reliant on them? There are other geographic areas (NSW north coast, Sunshine Coast in QLD) with very low vaccination take-up & high CO rates as well.
Double or nothing.
I also meant to say - your genuine question is a good one, and I don't think it's ever been tested. But it will be obvious fairly quickly if there is an increase, since the people who are trying to measure this have identified the particular populations with the low vaccination rates.