Immunisation rates by decile

Decile 10 in the health system is the poorest (it's opposite in the education system). A number of people have been heard expressing the view that it's either poor people neglecting their children who aren't immunising, or that its "middle / upper class arty farty luvvies mummies who spend far too much time doing Yoga and eating Tofu" as a commentor on WhaleOil posted.

The latest breakdown I can find shows that non-immunisation occurs almost evenly across deciles.

ACT Leader David Seymour has come out in favour of the "no jab, no pay" policy citing obligations on parents being assisted by the state to raise their children. Also Dr Lance O'Sullivan from Northland  says he is prepared to make a "call on it" having seen the results of non-immunisation in hospitals all too often.

The PM is sticking with the parental choice argument, citing Bill of Rights. (If only the Bill of Rights was upheld universally but it generally only makes an appearance when governments want to observe it - not when they want to ignore it.)

I'm still seeing the benefit aspect as a side issue.

But here is where we are in a different boat to Australia. Immunisation rates have been improving quite dramatically due to DHBs efficient and successful pursuance of targets. Beneficiary parents already have the obligation to get their child enrolled with Well Health. That leads on to immunisation.

In Australia, according to media reports, the non-immunisers are increasing.

Beneficiaries who are claiming to be "conscientious objectors" to resist immunising their children are probably not neglectful parents. Same with non-beneficiary parents. They may be misguided and pissing off the majority but if social security law is going to be used to stop them behaving in this way,  should we also find a law to stop non-beneficiary parents behaving similarly?

Then again ... the other part of my brain says people who want to live off the rest of society have sacrificed some rights and choices. If they don't like the paternalistic state they should keep themselves as free from it as they can.

"No jab, no pay"

The Australian government is removing the 'concientious objection' exemption for people who don't want their children immunised but want to continue to receive welfare benefits. This is so like the Aussies, who have a much lower regard for 'human rights' - in this case the parent's right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their child. Or at least the welfare-dependent parent.

But 'human rights' principles do not provide tidy solutions anyway. Which human's right? The parent who wants to protect their child from illness so chooses to immunise;  or the parent wants to protect their child  from possible vaccination side effects and chooses not to immunise? The latter's right impinges on the former's. There is no clear cut answer. And that is the state of the debate even before the welfare benefit aspect is introduced

After Australia makes this change (NZ has not but let's imagine it follows suit), if the state 'forces' the parent to immunise a child under threat of losing their benefit, does it bear responsibility for any bad result, however infinitesimal the odds are?

Let's think of it another way. The state also says, take that job or  lose part or all of your benefit. It could be in forestry where the risks of injury are relatively high. Does the state bear responsibility for an ensuing injury or death?

There are two answers. The first is, to an extent it does anyway, regardless of any 'compulsion' that led to the accident. It bears responsibility inasmuch as it recompenses through ACC. But this still leaves many people battling with authorities to get satisfaction.

The second is 'no'. The state does not legally bear any responsibility for 'forcing' people to take certain actions on pain of losing their benefit. Because IT DIDN"T FORCE THEM. The individual still had a choice not to work or not to immunise their child. They simply have to find an alternate source of income to furnish their decisions. That's the real world.

That's the world in which a parent who is financially independent of the state can choose not to immunise and the state cannot make them.

The debate, 'to jab or not to jab', is actually seperate. One which, again, human rights legislation cannot neatly address. But after the Australians take this step, it is a small next one to make every parent immunise their child compulsarily. Is that OK?

That is the question people really need to be grappling with.

Ex ACT leader says, would vote Green

Rodney Hide draws attention to the Green's upcoming leadership decision. Hide backs James Shaw as 

someone who could work with National on environmental problems, someone who could actually take the Greens into government for the first time, ending

Shaw can win more votes. He can also do something more important: he can put the Greens into power. Picture the look on Peters' face if the Greens blocked him from Government. I would vote Green 2017 just for that.

Sufficiently interested in this scenario I looked up James Shaw's maiden speech. Indeed he is an interesting character with a colourful business background.

A couple of excerpts that must have had some Green MPs cringing:

Now, I’m a huge fan of the market. When it comes to setting prices and allocating scarce resources it usually beats the alternatives hands down....


I am not committed to partisanship for its own sake. Political tribalism is, I believe, the single greatest barrier to creating enduring solutions to the great challenges of our time.

More

The steep decline in tobacco use without prohibition

The steep decline in tobacco use without prohibition




While a certain level of criminalisation has gradually been imposed, ie it is a crime to smoke in certain places, tobacco is still a legal, albeit highly addictive, substance.

Good on David Seymour

Good on David Seymour. And he always manages a touch of humour:

Act leader David Seymour said he raised the issue of such travel soon after entering Parliament, and "I've never seen politicians who are normally so opposed to each other close ranks so rapidly".
"I was basically told that I was having sour grapes because as a very small party I would be unlikely to qualify for one of these junkets.
"These guys are paid three times the average salary. Air travel has never been cheaper and, frankly, if the rest of the world is a mystery to these guys, maybe they shouldn't be in Parliament."

(On relating this piece of information to spouse he replied, of course, if you had got into parliament, and been offered the trip, I would have gone with you. I replied, no. Because I wouldn't have gone. As is normally the case, we usually only disgaree about matters hypothetical.)

Low on sympathy

Are you ready for an avalanche of these hardship stories?

To some people, this family would be well-off. A net income of over $1,000 weekly. In their own home, receiving a taxpayer subsidy to pay their mortgage. Receiving a taxpayer subsidy to raise their children which they keep having even when apparently already living on a shoestring.

There are going to be lots of these middle-class moanings and groanings as IRD jiggles  child support assessments and payments about.

One comment. It's the ex that is the problem in this particular spat. She's still on welfare while the daughter is 13 years-old. Yes, she may have had more children and more broken relationships in the interim. Whatever, she provides a fine example of the state-run sole parent industry.

Thank you NZ taxpayers. Except nobody is saying thank you. Most just complain. Including people like me who are heartily sick of the whole stupid set-up.

Findings on US welfare reforms

For the second time in quick succession NCPA has referenced Scott Winship's piece suggesting the US welfare reforms will aid upward mobility. This is an OK summation of a much longer piece excepting AFDC was scrapped and replaced with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) as a major part of the 1990s reforms.

Welfare Reform's Relation to Upward Mobility

April 6, 2015
The early 1990s saw the expansion of sweeping welfare reforms that increased class mobility through programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation (PRWOR) Act. Welfare reform targeted parental income, which conservatives often see as a way to increase long-term opportunity available to children.
Studies attest to the effectiveness of such a strategy:

• Columbia University found the rate of children living in poverty declined by 10 percent between 1990 and 2006.
• The number of employed single mothers rose by 66 percent since the introduction of welfare reform.
• A fall in the birth rate among unmarried African American women by 32 percent.
• Reforms were effective at mitigating what could have been a child poverty peak during the Great Recession, with only a meager rise of 2 percent.

The success of the 1990s welfare reform is credited to its emphasis on poor, young and low-educated women who were seen by both the Bush and Clinton administration as serving vital economic and social roles in society. Still, many policy solutions can undergo significant innovation and improvement since past reforms did not target the skills of poor children, which is also believed to be a significant factor in easing economic mobility.
Source: Scott Winship, "Will Welfare Reform Increase Upward Mobility?" Economics21, April 3, 2015.