LanguedocGal

[quote user="Benjamin"]Yet more unsubstabtiated and opinionated cant from LG. I'd almost forgotten what it sounded like.   [/quote] Thank you too, Benjamin. I'm assuming you're referring to one of my last rants on here about the Health service and the changes that were going to be/had to be made. Sorry to have deprived you of more as it was all sooo clearly wrong and off course. [;-)] But wait, on reading some of the posts on here, I can see that you have had ample unsubstantiated and opiniated rants to be going on with in my absence.[Www]

Thanks, Ron! I'm sure that it's clear from your posts that you DON'T have any problems.[Www][:-))]

[quote user="powerdesal"]How do these thick and hopeless people get their positions over white women and people of other races if it’s not a case of ingrained social positive discrimination? In an awful lot of cases you will find its a case of "promoted to a natural level of incompetence" Think about it, do a really good job, get promoted. Do a really good job in the new (higher) position and get promoted. Reach a job level where you cant / dont do a good job and then stay there. ergo "natural level of incompetence" [/quote] I agree with your point PD, and yes, that category does exist indeed too, but that's far from the whole story and we all know it.

[quote user="Ron Avery"] Wow some deep seated grievances there LG, what did your therapist say, let it all out? Yes, Ron, and you made it so easy. Ta Much! As I said in my experience..........  I believe that the best person for the job should get it irrespective of colour race or sexual orientation, not because they are black, female, gay and /or one legged. If a white man is the best candidate he should get the job  not a lesser able person just just to satisfy some notional targets. A great principle, especially as you obviously think a white man would be best, judging from your words below. Your statement about positive discrimination benefitting white men is a crock of shit.  Tell that to high-flying white career women out there and see how many fail to laugh in your face.[:-))] What happens in the real world is that targets are set to get a balance of ethnicity, and to meet those targets, people from ethnic backgrounds are promoted far beyond their capablities under a policy of positive discrimination, and it is them that suffer through stress etc.  Please be more specific about this real world. I'd hang around on LF just to learn about it. Fortunately the private sector does not suffer from so much belly button relection and gets on with recruiting the best people.  We do NOT live in the same 'real world' clearly, especially where France is concerned. Also strange but most of the worlds greatest leaders and innovators have been white and men, good job they got the chance to shine wasn't it........[Www]. Depends on your definition of 'greatest' so put away your copy of Mein Kampf before your head explodes.[:-))] [/quote]

[quote user="Ron Avery"] Now whether this all leads to positive discrimination and balancing of the ethnic books which in my experience promoted a lot of people to jobs beyond their capabilities which was not only bad for their companies[/quote] The problem I have with this statement is that it is more often than not uttered by white men who are, in fact, the main beneficiaries of positive discrimination whether in the UK, France, US etc.  I can perhaps understand white women objecting to ethnic positive discrimination, but find there's no credibility in white men doing so or being smarmy, as they get jobs by virtue of their colour and gender to the detriment of other genders and ethnic groups; only this fact is rarely acknowledged, is it?  Speaking of the private sector specifically; how many of us have worked in companies where heads of departments, directors etc were incompetent and stupid white men with everyone aware that the place is held together by the secretary/assistant etc? How do these thick and hopeless people get their positions over white women and people of other races if it’s not a case of ingrained social positive discrimination? However, it would appear that the group that benefits most from positive discrimination are so blind to their advantages that they can be self-righteous and spew prac. When white men pontificate about positive discrimination, I want to throw up. They remind me of the spoilt brat syndrome; a child with 20 toys who cries because the other child has one toy, which he wants to add to his own collection. However, the child is too young to be fully aware of his/her advantages. What are the excuses of white men who object to Positive discrimination? Positive discrimination (gender or ethnic) should NOT have to exist anywhere, however,in France, it’s essential because the degree of racism and sexism in industry is abominable. Another serious area of discrimination in employment in France is class and educational discrimination, which affects all races. If any of you have ever worked for a major French company or know much about the French higher education set up, you'd understand. What they do with the statistics is another matter, though sod all of any use to anyone, is my guess. I’ll crawl back under my stone on Wossum Porld where the sun shines brighter.[:D] LG   

Pat Yes, I got the breakdowns but I always look at other prices to get a general idea. I refused surgery and discharged myself the following day (I never claimed to be intelligent [:$]), so I didn’t have anything ‘major’ carried out. My figure was based on if I had accepted all that was offered.  The nurses and facilities were great – specialist not so. The cheapest forfaits journaliers in our local public hospital and a few private clinics, is 16 euros per night (excluding treatment of course). This is the price a private patient pays too. Call me sceptical but in view of the nurses and doctors and the facilities, how do they arrive at this rate and how much does it really cost?  The same applies to other charges too. Perhaps a French person on his forum can explain the funding process? I believe healthcare should be available for free or very cheap but for this to continue, it needs to be properly costed. Based on my experience, it’s not surprising that there is a huge deficit.

TV I didn’t think anyone had to agree or disagree, as this is a discussion forum[8-)]. I say a pittance because – see above. Disaster : because the govt, finanicial press and experts state non stop that there is a deficit of over 2 milliards and that it’s a huge problem. Trying to reduce health costs has already seen the introduction for example of medecin traitant and encouraging the population to use generic brands of medication. They will do much more or have to find the extra money from somewhere. Not so easy if the economy is not top. Do you doubt the funding crisis and if so why? I’d be happy to believe you. Why the deficit? They underestimate the cost of the care/service and the demand/ poor management (who knows but it exists, so it has to be dealt with). You mention under-funding. Where does that come from? Why do you think this deficit exists, then? I don’t understand why you talk about comparative figures with other countries. What has that to do with the French Health Service and it’s deficit? We are not discussing a better or worst health service/system in which case I would understand the need for comparative figures. PatF has explained the 2000K. As for the 500,000 Brit population: I’m one of those who believes it’s way overestimated (holiday home owners are not residents) but we are all free to believe whatever we want. However, irrespective of how many zeros that implied with the half a million, it would still be £2000 per person and even if only 400,000 needed treatment in any given year, that would only provide an extra £500 extra per person per annum, therefore, I don’t see the importance of the zeros. If  you know how the system is costed and why there is such a huge deficit, please say.

Benjamin wrote, ''You may have been "thinking" in these terms but have you any solid evidence to back these figures up?'' NO, but does anyone have any 'solid evidence' to disprove it?[:D] Seriously, my estimated figures are based on prices seen in a few Languedoc hospitals and clinics. Don’t worry, I’m not a hospital inspector and I avoid Doctors unless dragged there but if a friend is in a clinique/hospital, I’ll visit and ask questions. Prices vary of course but if a night’s stay in one hospital costs 350 or 600 (excluding treatment costs), it soon adds up even if insurance takes care of a %.  To my horror (because I think I’m invincible[8-)]), I was forcibly hospitalised a few months ago (surreal). Anyway, I noted the costs displayed and  £2000 over a year even for someone who is not seriously ill, isn’t much. If you go to a doctor, the practice rates are displayed too. In hospitals, you should see the forfaits journaliers etc displayed.  It’s quite simple to build up an idea of cost that way. You really don’t need to be Einstein, just nosey.  So, I don’t have any hard facts and in view of their deficit, I doubt the French health service do either[6]. In some cases, 2000K may barely cover a week’s stay in hospital or clinic, not to mention the rest. Re the 2000K E121 rate; I do remember reading figures dating back to 2001 that said that the average French person used around 2000 euros on health per annum. It’s possible that the EU121 figures are based on EU/National averages which obviously includes the young and those not in need of any care too. Here, we are only talking about a specific age range so such averages are obviously meaningless. If you really want to know, why not call Brussels and find out? They are there to serve us or is that some fantasy? There I go trying to think again. It always gets me into trouble.[:D]

I agree with WJT’s first post above. 2000K averages out -in my mind - only in the Merlin the Magician school of accountancy (They're having a laff up there in Newcastle?[:D]). If the trend for retired (not just Brits) moving to France continues, then the French Health Ministry is going to need to employ Merlin to make the books balance.  The 2000K is thus for the non top up element of the costs. Frankly, it’s a pittance and the French State is going to have to renegotiate if the country continues to attract large numbers of retired immigrants. Their health costings are currently a disaster in any case. In terms of averaging out, I was thinking in terms of  a minimum of 12/15K per person per annum.  At the rate of 2000K, it’s clearly advantageous for all EU govts to encourage their retired population to emigrate to another EU country. (Is LF and similar Magazines govt financed[6]). All this sounds horrible no doubt (it's not meant to, honest.) but we are talking figures here and the French retired don't appear to move to other EU countries in sufficient numbers to even things out.   On the positive side, France could always transform itself into the retirement home for the EU and be funded accordingly. ''Always look on the bright side of life''[Www]

[quote user="5-element"] I can't think of any other answer, can anyone? [/quote] They never wash them.

[:D][:D] Pauvre Normad!  Think that may have been directed at all the foreign ‘ingrats’ such as myself. You’ve clearly not grasped that when you move to France, in the eyes of some, you are not allowed to complain about anything (even if you would have done so in your country of origin). You are supposed to turn into some sort of yes zombie.  By the way, you must know that the French are formidable raleurs (and can be quite amusing with it), so if you want to integrate, rale as much as you possibly can [:D]– more interesting than becoming a yes zombie. Complaining about what is, is not the same as saying everything was better where you came from. It appears that there are those that have a problem making the distinction. Re bank charges; for me, they are all annoying and I put up with them because I have NO choice and they are always excessive.

Truth is, I don’t know for sure but my hunch (not worth much), unless the system has changed is, yes. Why? I understood – going back a few years  -that a flat rate was paid for each person on these schemes and the UK or other govt will pay a certain amount. The issue here too is that health costing in France is notoriously bad (see their deficit) and unless the EU govt provides something like 30/40K per year per person, I would say that each govt wherever one resides carries the surplus costs.  Of course, with a flat rate provision, costs can also be offset by the provision for those who do not require treatment, but the initial amount still has to be considerable if the trend is for an aging population of immigrants to France. For me, budgeting for health is like for renovations; if you think you will need 60K then assume you actually need double and the older we get, the more important that becomes. I will use my own example; I recently went to into hospital and stayed overnight. I managed to note some of the charges displayed and based on a 24-hour stay and treatment, the rate would have been in the region of 3000-3500 euros.  We are used to paying the top-up and so we believe that the service is really really cheap, but it’s not. Of course, if the system is now such that the EU govt’s are invoiced for ‘each and every’ hospital visit/doctor appointment/medication, lab tests, x rays etc etc, then the answer is that the costs are fully met via the various E forms. I just cannot see each govt invoicing the patient's home country for every single treatment. What bureaucratic nightmare and which UK dept deals with this? I’m no longer in touch with my colleague who had details on this but someone on here may know. I apologise for basing this on a hunch (but what the heck![Www]) and general reading on the French health service, but I can’t do better right now and I’d be more than happy if anyone knew the amount each govt provides on the E121/E106.  Reading posts on this forum, I often get the impression that many think they are 'net contributors' and perhaps that's true, but I think the health funding issue could provide a clearer picture. It may be that it's in the UK's advantage for their retired folks to emigrate but is it in the interest of the host nation? Discuss. I'm not suggesting that people should be denied health provision (before anyone bites my head off[:D]) but the issue of 'drain on the state' was raised and this seemed to me to be an obvious one, so it would be a delight to be proven wrong, because the French health deficit is no laughing matter.

You are right, John, as prices are definitely NOT falling in Cataluyna, unless someone out there can tell me otherwise.

[quote user="cooperlola"] LDG, are not the contributions which we make into the health system the same as a native-born French person?  When we're on E106/121's it's the UK who coughs up, isn't it?  Otherwise the rules on our payments are the same, aren't they?   Different if you turn up here with nothing, but then it becomes a matter of whether one believes one has a moral obligation to help support those in need, or to send them back to whatever appalling circumstances caused them to leave where they came from in the first place. [/quote] Cooperlola, I was concentrating on Tony’s ‘Drain on the State’ by immigrants statement but to answer the first part of your question in more depth.  A French person and an immigrant who moves to France many years prior to retirement, work/pay taxes AND pay contributions to the health system over a number of years. It’s not the same as someone who moves to France having paid taxes abroad (any country) and is then able to benefit from 70% (or whatever) as those who have lived and worked here. Yes, I know that retired people pay taxes on their investments etc etc but it’s not the same as a Native/immigrant who has been living and working in France for many years, and Tony was talking about a ‘drain’. Health is an enormous drain on the French  (or any) economy and solving the funding is a major issue. The state could decide that immigrants who retire here (as this trend may continue) pay to cover, say 80% of their health costs. For those who move here pre-retirement, a qualifying tax and health contribution period could be levied. This would lead to a substantial saving and less of a drain on the state than the other measures Tony mentioned. There are, of course, other issues such as the same applying to French immigrants in other EU countries. However, it would still be beneficial for the French state to pick up the tab for their nationals in EU countries, as most are younger and working in those countries. A levy could be raised on their earnings abroad towards the French state health costs.  From what I can gather, most French people stay/return to France or move to one of their Outre-Mer islands on retirement and are thus taken care of by the system they have contributed to all their lives. However, France attracts a high number of foreign retirees and this raises other health funding issues. I personally believe that the huge deficit in the French health budget comes from the French themselves but if immigrants are going to raise these issues, as Tony did, then let’s consider the most effective potential areas of saving, and health is a major one with an enormous deficit. As for your final point, I will not deal with that here, as that is a whole other issue from that raised by Tony, which seems to refer to EU immigrants. By the way, I don't work for Sarko[Www]

[quote user="Thibault"] I would be interested to know how the Brits have ruined one country (I assume their own).  I would also be interested in how they are now ruining France. [/quote] Oh, come on, Thibault!  That was a bit of fun, surely? However, try to place yourself in the position of a French person from La France Profonde, who doesn't know the UK. He meets Brit immigrants who rant about how their country has gone to the dogs bla bla and they have 'escaped' to paradise in France.  Frankly, I'd be afraid that these people had come to wreck my country too. Cheer up, mate[:D]

[quote user="Alan D"]If immigration is high on his agenda what's the general view on Brits moving to France?  Restriction or encouragement because we are a source of income?[/quote] ''Because we are a source of income''. Yes, a source of income but hope no one is smug about it. As France does not seem to appeal to a huge number of young active Brits, how much can the income be globally?  I'm not trying to minimise the contribution of the retired/semi retired living in France but it cannot be denied that between the option of the young active French (who move to the UK) and the older generation (myself included) moving here, I suspect that an economy looking to ''encourage'' immigration, would prefer the former. I also suspect (to be blunt) that the health consumption by all of us, could outweigh our contribution after a number of years even with top-up insurance policies. So, as TV says, when the French talk about immigration, they do tend to refer to people of colour (though not exclusively in my experience), none the less, the fact that France seems to attract so many European immigrants of a certain age is also an economic reality it has to face and probably take some difficult measures to be able to cope should the trend continue. Edit: Cooperlola, saw your post after I posted this. Perhaps this explains what I meant better?

[quote user="trgrant55"]I wonder if us Brits over in France do not want anymore English in their village  because as I understand from a french friend that she thinks its because us brits ruined one country (not us of course guys) and now the Brits are over trying to do the same in France.  Made me think.[/quote] Cruel but [:D][:D]

[quote user="Tony F Dordogne"] Will be interesting to see whether or not he reintroduces the carte de sejour.  I've not needed one (came to France after requirement finished) but will be interesting to see whether he uses that or something similar as an economic determinant of people's ability to move to France and not be a 'drain' on the French state, don't have the money to support yourself, not allowed in and therefore cannot claim RMI etc. I know there are EU regs which theoretically allow freedom of movement and domicile but it will be interesting to see whether Sarkozy does what the UK has done (to various nationals of Easter European countries) and restrict benefits, housing etc for people from the EU. [/quote] We can but speculate and, ignoring EU regs, that's what I'll do here. On the ‘drain on the French State’ aspect, . The RMI probably wouldn’t save the state that much because everything I read suggests it's a pittance like Income Support (of course with related advantages). The carte de sejour would just be a bureaucratic and costly nonsense as it only determines someone’s capacity to fund themselves at the time of application and possibly a year or two thereafter. Someone could arrive with means and things change for the worse after a few years once they have the Carte. Would they be deported then? Highly unlikely, so what is the point? Let’s call a spade a spade. I think Sarkozy would simply have to target access to the health service to save a bundle for the State. This would affect all immigrants and save them a packet. That would mean people like us having to take out much more expensive health policies to cover what the French State would not. The real saving is thus in health. France will also become considerably less attractive to a certain category of British immigrant as well if access to healthcare became very expensive.

Mairie, who suddenly appeared from nowhere, pursued by 50 gentle souls belonging to the CRS. In agony, the Mairie cried out to the Marie who was leaving the Maire, accompanied by the local Petanque team.  They froze, horrified at such a miscarriage of justice, as a result of this catastrophic mistaken identity …..

Tag, isn't that similar to the old UK's mortgage relief scheme on the first 30K? It's now abolished but I remember the price hikes it provoked in the late 80s when the double relief was going to be abolished. Bearing in mind that a lot of French people do not earn enough to pay income tax, I don't see what difference it will make for the poorest. As for the sector of the market, many do prefer newer properties so,  I suppose it could do wonders for Sarko's developer friends catering to the higher earning middle classes. When you talk about older houses, are you referring to older houses in rural areas? The main issues for a lot of these areas are not old or new but work opportunities to attract buyers who are still part of the active economy.  I think that older houses will continue to interest those currently attracted by them; namely foreign retired, second homeowners from abroad or the Paris region. If such a relief is not properly targeted at the most needy, it's going to benefit those with means and it will end up being another huge burden on the state.

My real name is not Miki but ErnieY. I acknowledge that identity theft is a capital crime and have voluntarily agreed (to the CRS) that I will spend 10 years in the Foreign legion for imitating Miki and stealing his identity.  The CRS Chief then signed the decree for ErnieY to be shipped out to Outer Mongolia.   Later that day ....

[quote user="Chief"] [quote user="monaco"]  Presumably there are several English families in the village because they bought houses from French owners who didn't give a damn who they were as long as they paid the asking price. [/quote] And therein lies the real issue.  As i alluded to in a previous post, they openly profess to hate the english, the spanish, etc etc, but their thinking soon changes when it comes to selling up.  Suddenly, the english etc are okay as they have the money to spend.  Hypocritical stance in every sense.  If they relly want to keep their villages french, solution is simply...stop selling your houses, or reduce your asking prices to levels affordable by your kids, and fellow countrymen. [/quote] Very true, Chief. Another point is that if the foreigners didn’t buy the properties, I doubt the young French would in sufficient numbers, even with the present housing crisis in France. I have friends in their 30s/early 40s, whose family own an entire hamlet with sufficient houses and more than enough land for the 3 boys, in a truly beautiful part of Languedoc. However, the houses are only ever used as holiday/weekend homes as the sons and their partners prefer to live in towns/lively villages, where there is life and work. I also have two friends in Paris who will inherit a large house in the Vendee but they don’t even want to go there for their holidays (they did as children) because it’s too rural for them. The reason these properties in rural France were available at such knock down prices in the first place, was because the young had moved away due to lack of opportunities; high property prices had ZILCH to do with it initially. It seems clear to me that most would much rather, for example, pay 200,000 euros for a 2/3 bedroom flat (70-80sqm) in a lively town with opportunities, than live in large old houses, available for nothing except maintenance, that are situated in the middle of nowhere. As we all know, many of the rural communities were dying and quite a few owe their regeneration to foreigners moving in. So, if you move into a hamlet/quiet village, you should not be surprised that the French are not rushing to buy the empty properties near you. It’s always easier to blame the immigrants for woes and changes, and to read some of the posters here when talking about immigrants in the UK (or the number in their hamlets), the French are not unique in that. A few suggestions: For those who don’t like hamlets with too many non French residents, buy an entire hamlet and determine who moves in as tenants - simply discriminate[:(] For those who complain about the culture/traditions of these hamlets/villages changing because of too many foreigners, I would suggest that without the immigrants, the culture and traditions would change in any case; mainly from alive to dead.  

the CRS's Serious Anti-Fun Division got wind of the fact that people were having fun in the vacinity. Enraged, they set up barricades outside....

I agree with Richard  in that it’s like chalk and cheese. Marseillan is not as attractive (in a quaint French manner) or peaceful as Lagrasse and is much more touristy with the disadvantages that entails when those from the North head south in the summer months. But it has the advantage of being lively and near important Herault towns, hence offering you substantial choice, facilities and social life all year round, which you simply wouldn’t get in Lagrasse. Contrary to Richard, Lagrasse would only be tolerable for a weekend for me and to live there would be out of the question; simply too dead (sorry, tranquil[:)]).  However, if you are a ‘typical’ British life-style immigrant, I suspect that Lagrasse will suit you much more than Marseillan.  If you are under 40, I’d strongly recommend Marseillan because of the social life (see Twinkle's post) and Montpellier, which is close enough for work and other activities. It may help if you say what you are looking for.  

so the fonctionnaires from the ‘’Keep France’s Wine Superior’’ govt department,  assisted by the CRS, were drafted in as a matter of urgency to investigate and unearth the perpetrators. After a lengthy and thorough investigation over lunch, suspicion fell on the English in the village and nearby hamlet. They were all herded into …