Deimos

This may be a daft question, but I thought Europe (incl. France) and UK changed their clocks at the same time these days.  Has the UK changed back to GMT.  My PC (in France) changed time automatically overnight and I had to do watches etc. by hand.  However, switched on my TV with Sky (i.e. as in the UK) and the time on that was still BST (i.e. now the same as in France).  Wondered if it was a slower update but no, the programs being broadcast are as per BST (i.e. the program I was watching started at 14:00 and in France it is currently 14:25). I remember there used to be a week difference between changing clocks (so Europe and UK were on teh same time for a week) but I thought that had been got rid of these days. Am I going mad, or have I missed something ? Ian

I've not tried a flame gun on brambles but have found strimming works well.  Using a special trimming blade (not the saw, not the cable but like a strip of steel with each end turned down - difficult to describe).  This special blade is used with an up and down motion rather than a sideways motion and seems to pretty well shred the brambles. Of course it does not kill the roots.  However, after cutting then down (completely, not just back), they seem to be staying down/back and only regrowing slowly.  The slight re-growth after a year or two is very easy to chop back and they don't seem a great problem then (maybe after the 2nd cut the root die ?). [quote user="Barkham"]I've got a little gas one which is handy for ... and setting light to mole killer gas cartridges. [/quote] strange that as day before yesterday I got my first ever pack of mole thingys (the ones you light) and I could not get them going and ended up getting my blowtorch out - which worked fine.  I thought the ones I go were to scare them away - but I'm happy killing them when they get close to the house. Ian

[quote user="Russethouse"]For example, when people talk about the "asset rich, cash poor" in the context of tax and health system they refer to those whose lifestyle way exceeds their declared income. Are you sure? Doesn't this apply to people who have their own property, probably quite nice, but just live off interest on savings - I don't personally see it as having anything to do with declared income, thats a different category[;-)] [/quote] You are right and there are alternatives (or variants).  The income you can generate from your capital will depend on how risk averse you are.  Depending on what age people give up work, some might live of interest and spending some of the capital slowly (i.e. the capital gradually gets smaller).  This is where the comment about "declared income" comes in.  Rumour (e.g. on this forum) is that a few people are starting to be investigated by the authorities as they appear to be living beyond the income they declare (on tax returns).  This is quite possible if you spend the capital as well as the interest.  When people comment on the "asset rich, income poor" (in this context) they tend to be referring to the group who appear to have very low income (low tax and low CMU contributions) yet live fabulously - because they are spending their capital.  And this is where the equation breaks down because, for "inactifs" to have enough capital to last there has to be a lot and that will generate a lot of interest so they would no longer be considered "cash poor". For most people who give up work before retirement age ("inactifs"), the money they spend in Super U has to come from somewhere.  Most people cannot start drawing their pensions early (military people being one exception).  Thus, for others the cash has to come from somewhere.  Given that you are "inactif" and thus not employed that leaves things like running gites/B&B and similar or having savings and interest. Savings and interest is a challenging one for people to calculate as most people will not have inflation adjusted pensions so have to make allowances for their income requirement and effective capital depreciation for inflation. Ian

For example, when people talk about the "asset rich, cash poor" in the context of tax and health system they refer to those whose lifestyle way exceeds their declared income.  When they do leave their swimming pools they tend to be driving their Range rovers, etc., etc.  The reason they are described as such is that they are supposedly living off savings.  i.e. the money they spend in Super U is not generated from income/interest but rather is being taken from a massive heap of savings.  Owning you house does not allow you to do this. Thus my point holds and it is not wise to raise this group as they do not exist.  The closest they can come to existing is by hiding their savings behind a life assurance scheme.  However, this if completely legal and allowed (by both French and UK and most other EU countries).  The income is still taxed but not as badly - and its the income (the cash this group supposedly don't have) that is not taxed as much not the capital. (I was using real figures, just not necessarily mine).  Look at the supposed numbers of people who are selling-up in the UK and downsizing to France.  Large place in Surrey to smaller place in France leaves capital. Ian

[quote user="Maricopa"] The only bit of sense you talked in your post.[:)] [/quote] And I was trying to be so nice and not be nasty to anybody as well.  Maybe I should just pick every bit of your response and miss the point and pull it to bits (which would be very very easy as you have totally missed what I said by entirely focusing on your own situation). When you talk about generalisations you have to make generalisations !!!  You really missed the point entirely - selfish attitude.  Anyway, I cannot be bothered to point out where you are wrong (and you are).  and then to turn round and say my generalisation is too simplistic - my god. Ian (who is pretty pissed-off with such an attitude and is questioning why bother to help - after all I'll be financially better off under the new scheme; and no, I have not given away my income either).

[quote user="ams"] By the way we pay our GP €22 per visit, i guess your yearly visit must be due soon. [/quote] Early Jan.  I'm trying to work out how to renew my sailing license (not possible until after 31/Dec), get the paperwork and visit the doctor for the medical all before 5/Jan (when my cover expires).  And if I work it out I will be taking the trouble to claim this year.  Its a daft medical.  Last years was just a chat and he tried to persuade me to have an operation !!  Basically, walk into his office (mostly) unaided and you get the certificate. Ian

[quote user="Tony F Dordogne"] Sorry but I think that we're missing the point here about the French government.  The French government CAN ignore the 5 year rule ... [/quote] I agree.  I was raising the "asset rich, income low" point as I think it is something that does not really exist and as such should not be used in any arguments about the changes (as it can be "shot down in flames" really easily - giving people to ignore other points raised in the same letter). I raised the issue about many people being better off, in part because when I last voted on the No. Petition thing I was disappointed to see how few signatories there were.  Given how widely the message has been spread and given that many have probably voted multiple times (though could never admit it as it would invalidate the entire petition) I think quite a few have decided not to object to something they perceive makes them better off.  I personally think that it might save this group a few €s in the short term but the longer term consequences are a lot worse and they have not thought it through. [quote user="cooperlola"] The cost of this for the 2 of us is about 4,400 euros... [/quote] A completely separate debate but, two of you will statistically require twice the treatment and thus cost twice as much (and the Private Insurance companies will make twice the profit by denying to treat twice as many conditions. In fact there are massive inequalities and discriminatory practices/rules in the current system (where it comes to marries/co-habiting/single people).  Whilst I think they really should be sorted, now is probably not the time as at least they are not stopping ill people getting treated and not messing up peoples' residence options. [quote user="rothrugby"] We're neither asset rich nor cash rich , just a pair of ordinary people trying to get by! [/quote] I suppose I'm thinking that there are quite a few "early retires" who sold-up expensive mortgage paid properties in the south east and now live of saving/interest tiding them over until their pensions arrive (and then boosting their pensions somewhat).  Not everybody but maybe quite a few. [quote user="rothrugby"] The quote you got seems very low compared to others we've seen- where did this come from? [/quote] It was an internet site but cannot remember the full company (as I did not progress things).  They would only quote for people taking out cover within one month so I lied about when I would need cover so their quote was useless to me. [quote user="rothrugby"] Furthermore, we've seen small print that excludes payment for conditions that an insurer deemed were present although not diagnosed at the time the policy was taken out- hence excluded. We've also seen exclusions for illnesses if they require more than one treatment  i.e follow up cancer treatment as this will then be defined as chronic- another exclusion. [/quote] I have heard that US Insurance companies are refusing to pay out on conditions/illness that has a genetic link.  They are saying (on occasions) that whilst the illness was pre-existing (i.e. genetic predisposition) and was just un-diagnosed - and thus not covered.  Most I looked at seem to only cover conditions where you get ill, get treated (in the relatively short term) and get better.  Anything else (even the really expensive ones) exclude pretty well everything else.  I think this is one area where the (maybe) selfish people thinking they are "better-off" will subsequently find themselves "worse off" when they try to claim for a serious condition. [quote user="Tony F Dordogne"] Sorry but I think that we're missing the point here about the French government.  The French government CAN ignore the 5 year rule ... [/quote] And I agree - having taken the thread on a bit of a tangent.  However, where people have energy to pursue lines they consider much be productive I say "go for it".  Maybe the EU law route would be slow but maybe the questions raised by some of the organisations people have contacted will all contribute to the pressure on the French authorities. Ian

[quote user="sunshine 2"]Sorry Deimos but your figures don't make any sense to me. Although the small print will vary,  insurance companies in general are not going to pay 70 % towards the cost of GP visits, and the cost of  regular medications etc  The cost of some regularly prescribed medications for hight blood pressure, high colesterol etc are very high indeed - so you total bill for health care when out of CMU will be cost of private health insurance plus cost of GP visits and regular medications.[/quote] In my example I am in good health.  I see my GP once a year for a required medical (which is a joke) and I have never got anything back for that anyway (he has no machine so for 70% of €21 I just bin the brown form). If you have a chronic illness that will sway the balance.  Remember I was not saying everybody will be better off, just that a number of people will be (I doubt anybody knows how many).  Many people are probably not on regular medications (remembering we are talking about the pre retirement age group).  It would not surprise me at all if people with existing conditions would be financially worse of.  I was talking about those without the pre-existing conditions (which I suspect will be a significant group). Pretty well everybody I know in my age group would be in a similar situation (i.e. healthy, no ongoing problems, etc.) - but then they are not affected by this anyway as they are French. The main point is not the numbers, though they illustrate the principle and are not 100 miles out, but that the "better off" group do not need to be on massive incomes as people have supposed so far.  You can be on a quite modest income and still be better off with these changes.  I think this is probably where the original Sidall's comment may have come from and maybe why there are not more people objecting to the changes. Ian

[quote user="rothrugby"]... how can anyone be better off paying for 100% cover than paying for a complementaire?  I've yet to see any insurance quote which is less than what we currently pay, for the same level of cover.[/quote] It depends a lot of your circumstances.  For example, in your own case you say "we" - which means your private insurance premiums will be twice what you (or your OH) would pay alone (so think of the impact for a single person).  Although my CPAM cover does not expire until Jan 2008, I got a quote to just check what I would have to pay and despite being on a relatively low income (from savings interest), by the time you take out the top-up costs I am just better off - and my income is no where near the €60000 mentioned (absolutely no where near). Not for me but some hypothetical numbers: Private insurance (actually what I was quoted) €2200 per year Less €720 you would have paid in top-up gives net cost of private insurance of €1480 With CMU at 8%, then the break even point is an income of €21800 (remembering the 7000€ threshold) Thus, anybody with an income of €21800 will be better off. (Might be errors and variances in the above but hopefully not massive ones) However some people will not be "a person" but two people - which shifts things.  Some people might pay more (or less) top-up (don't know as I have not yet "got round" to sorting one out - I've only lived here 4 years).  However a couple will probably have a higher income so 8% represents a higher amount as well. Actually this "asset rich, income poor" category does not really exist.  If you have assets they generally generate income (unless you are a bit daft when it comes to financial matters).  You may chose to re-invest that income or you may have the assets "tied-up" and acquiring value.  Either way, when you take the money you will pay 8% to the CMU.  Maybe a few lean years whilst the assets gain in value but cash then in and the CMU does well that year.  Even a simplistic  sell-up for £300 000 and move to your holiday home in France gives you an income of €27000 per year in a regular bank deposit. Thus, my theory is that quite a few individuals will be better off under the new regime.  But there are loads of issues raised by these changes that will affect a lot of people badly, even in only in indirect ways.  As Tony and others say, this is an injustice to theose with pre-existing conditions and chronic illnesses so we all need to "stick out necks out".  I personally do not want a private company whose only interest is making a profit deciding what treatments I can and cannot have - when every cent they spend on me is a cent less profit for them. Also, this issue has raised issues relating to the French governments attitude to British residents.  The fact that they think they can ignore obligatory EU legislation (5 year thing) when it suits them needs to be "corrected".  The fact that somebody is using the issue for political gain needs to be "corrected".  Personally I think there are French politicians spreading the "why should the Brits get health care without contributing" thing.  There are too many people and MEPs thinking this way for it to be a mis-understanding. I definately think it is a battle worth fighting and one that we should fight for moral reasons.  Society really should be able to care for those who have the misfortune to fall ill. Ian

To be honest, it is difficult to know if he is right or wrong and the extent. There are people who will be better off under the new scheme (myself for example). How many will benefit and how any lose and to what extent depends on the statistical nature of those moving here. Of course there are those with chronic conditions and with conditions that will affect their insurance cover and those really do need to be sorted. However, those are probably the minority and I would suspect that the majority in the "inactif" are probably healthy and will not have a big problem getting private health insurance - but I have no evidence for that, just "I suspect". Where the numbers lie is difficult as we are almost certainly getting a biased view here. Many not affected (or better off) with these changes will probably not be posting. It might just be that this guy has a better appreciation of the situations of a larger and more "cross-sectional" sample of those moving to France. Maybe not. Please do not interpret my comments as suggesting that it is not worth fighting these changes. Despite being better of under the new regime, I am strongly against the changes. Apart from those who lose cover for existing conditions, I think that private insurance is not the way any society should be going. We should be able to threat those members of our society who become ill and it should not be a subject to private business profit considerations and the needs of shareholder dividends. Ian

When I lived in the Netherlands (quite a long time ago), their social security charges were very very very high. However, their income tax level was a lot lower and the net result was that you lost about the same percentage from you pay as in the UK. Of course, when I moved back to the UK after more than a year there the UK decided to tax me on everything I had earnt there (offsetting what was a very low level of income tax paid there but ignoring the very high social security charges). Even back then I was also required to take out a separate health insurance policy (cannot remember if it was a top-up of separate but I was employed by a Dutch company, paying full contributions, etc. They were very fussy about giving me a residents permit. The police kept complaining that my contract said permanent employment rather than having any time limit !!! - which meant they kept stamping my passport with police stamps in Dutch which then cause me loads of problems travelling to other countries as everybody else say the "Police" bit but did not understand what the rest was. Ian

I have noticed it as well on several occasions. Signal strength and quality are excellent (when it happens and all the time). Clear weather when it happens. I've noticed in on some of the more regular channels (e.g. ITV3/4 a BBC 3/4 type of ones - cannot remember exactly). Has not happened for a week or so, but then maybe I've not been watching those channels recently.  When it happens it might happen a few times in 10 or 15 mins then go away and be fine. Ian

I notice the British Embassy web site now says that the French are honouring the 5-year residence rule. However, there is no date on this info so I have no idea if this is today's decision, last weeks, or still hanging around from Sept (why do people rarely put dates on web pages !!). Also, the link for the info they give - to the French service public site thing is to a page dated 24/Sept and makes no mention of the 5 year rule - just says "no E106/E121 and "inactif" and you are out. Is this old news or is there some change ? Ian

[quote user="Graham and Brenda"] IF the 5 year rule subsequently is allowed, there will have been a cost to "the system" of booting us out and then re-registering us. Crazy. [/quote] Remember this is France. If you can save 10€ though it costs you 100€ to do then it is worth doing (despite the net cost of 90€). This is particularly true there the main costs be bureaucracy. Also, bear in mind that this has little to do with cost savings. It is about political dogma (dislike of the "inactifs"). There are many hundreds of things they could do without impacting people's healthcare that would save a fortune - but they are not motivated by things like that. Ian

[quote user="cooperlola"]I assume, Deimos, that you are the Ian HERE - if so, I see we both got on the blog. Even the website name didn't get edited out, even if it's not a proper link.[/quote] Afraid it is (the Ian without any surname).  I get a bit irritated by the "meeting culture" where people discuss, seek clarification, etc., etc.; all of which goes on forever so nobody actually has to do anything but they just hope that if the extend things long enough the problem will just go away. Ian

Lets just hope there are plenty of pharmacies for them to stop off an re-stock at along the way. (I am too much of a cynic on occasions - OK always). Ian

1200€ for 8 large windows (decent quality excl. fitting) would be a very good price.  However, 1200€ for fitting 8 large windows also seems quite high (5 man days work using local charpente rates which is 2 people for 2,5 days which is too long - though it probably depends on any difficulties. Ian

Re: the British Embassy Response It says that apparently not all CPAMs have been told yet but it does not say what the CPAMs are being told. Given how the French have previously given assurances and changed their mids I whould have expected the British Embassy to have been furnished a copy of what was being sent to the cPAM offices - so they can be sure and confidant exactly what was said. If they are just going on verbal assurances again - then they are probably not worth the paper ... (except of course there is actually nothing in writing at all). Ian

The thing that concerns me a bit is that the French have already clarified things to the FCO and given them reassurances then changed their minds within a day or two. Thus, should the FCO receive further reassurances and clarification, I expect the French to go back on those pretty quickly - called learning from experience. Thus, I think the UK/EU need to be a bit more assertive and tell the French what they are doing is wrong and will stop. Ian

[quote user="Ninthace"][quote user="Russethouse"]YES - just got 'on topic' !!!!![:D][/quote]   And off it and away as fast as he can with no more information added to that in his Blog.  Chocolate teapots come to mind! [/quote] I just added another comment to his BLOG.  I think we were just watching "something he prepared earlier".  To have got through so little in such a long time beggars belief.  More has been happening here in the same time. Ian

Well I decided to take the dogs out for a walk as it was so slow.  when I returned I thought it finished as he had answered virtually nothing in the 20 mins I was away.  Maybe its like so many politicians; when you get a question you can answer (or "prepared earlier") spend as long as possible answering it as the next question might not be so easy. IAn

Looks like a waste of time as he is clearly "cherry picking" the questions he wants to answer.  Questions appering now seem to be follow-on from previous questions meaning loads of onse inbetween are just being ignored. I bet if somebody asked him "how he manages to achieve so much in so short a time" it would get answered - top of the list. Ian

[quote user="cooperlola"]Still nowt!  Should I do anything else, apart from click on the link?[8-)][/quote] I keep pressing the Refresh button.  While this guy (this minister) is having his coffee break (I assume anyway), maybe we need some jokes about the speed of UK government. Ian

He's not fast.  Also, if you look at teh web links (the real ones, not the display format) they are not typed so I suspect we are seeing pre-prepared answers.  So next thing is why is he so slow (as RH noted). Ian

I'm getting nothing - long delay ? Ian