makfai

[quote user="Sunday Driver"] The information provided by the DWP staff in Glyn's link appears to be inconsistent with the position on the French side. [/quote] First question - who is 'Glynn'?[:)]...EDIT: Found him here http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/13/1011687/ShowPost.aspx#1011687 Secondly, the DWP's position is certainly inconsistent with the position on the British Embassy's side but I have not yet seen anything official from the French side yet to judge one way or the other. I go along with what SD says on this. I have always maintained that the only 'reasonable' application of this legislation is for persons who are now resident and on an E106 to merge into the CMU once the E106 expires. However, I have always accepted that my interpretation of 'reasonableness' may not be the same as that of the French Govt.  I just hope that the DWP's position is wrong and that the Embassy's position is correct. I will post the reply to my email to them as soon as it arrives.  In the meantime, anyone heard anything from the official French side yet?

[quote user="cooperlola"]   Mods : This would make an excellent FAQ : A sticky, maybe? [/quote] I think we should perhaps wait before making this a sticky as we still seem to have a conflict of views on the future of 'current residents still on an E106 ' category but there is no reason why certain useful links, phone nos, email and actual addresses couldn't be put into a sticky as a sort of 'Useful Points of Contact on Health Care' type thing.  In fact we should be getting the actual rulings from the English language service of France's CPAM tel: +33 8 20 90 42 12 but any verbal clarification is only as good as the paper it is (not) written on! I also think coop's list of sources of private insurance is useful.  It is not advertising a such as providing a handy point of reference

The situation for those who are resident in France and a part of the CMU seems to have been clarified to some extent so I thought it might be useful to start this topic for those not in that category I  have today (10:00 BST 12 September 2007) telephoned the  DWP Overseas Medical Benefits line tel: (+44 [0]191 218 1999) and been assured that the position is this: person already resident in France but are still on the E106 the E106 will remain valid but at the end of the E106 cover you will no longer be able to join the CMU.  When eligible for the E121 then you will no longer need the private health cover as existing arrangements for the E121 will still apply. [Personal Comment: I think that this is 'unreasonable' and believe that persons already resident should be allowed to join the CMU on expiry of the E106.  (I am not in that category by the way!) and that criterion (i.e. residency) was the one used in the British Embassy's email.  I have emailed them again on this] those who are already committed to moving to France but have not yet arrived or who are contemplating moving to France but are not yet committed to the process. the E106 will still cover you in the same fashion as it did before the recent changes but once it expires you will be in the same boat as those above but see notes below NOTES ON E106 FOR SELF-EMPLOYED For those planning a move please remember that an E106 does not automatically cover you for 2 years.  The E106 expiry date is based on qualification years (i.e. tax years) and only FULLY COMPLETED tax years count.  So for those who are still self-employed in the UK, the current tax year (2007/8) will not count towards the qualification period for any E106 issued in this tax year.  In reality this means that any person still self-employed but moving to France before April 2008 will be issued with an E106 which will expire on or before 3 January 2009. FOR EMPLOYED The position for employed persons is similar to the above but the current tax year will count as a qualifying year if that person has earned over a certain amount in pay (varies each year) in the current tax year. For an E106 issued in this current tax year (2007/8) the person must have earned over £4350 in salary for this tax year to be included as a qualifying year.   WARNING: The above information was relayed to me by the staff at the DWP but obviously I cannot accept any responsibility for its accuracy at the time a particular person may read this post - things change (don't we know!). All persons contemplating a move should contact DWP Overseas Medical Benefits line (0191 218 1999) to check their own specific entitlement and that of any dependents.  The staff who 'man' this helpline have been very helpful and I have not been kept on hold!      

[quote user="Russethouse"] For info, reassurance from the Health Ministry that the tightening of rules on healthcare provision will not be retrospective, so early retiree Brits already residing in France will be unaffected - they can continue to access healthcare. So is this going to include those who are resident but still on E106's ? I guess this could be why people are being asked to prove residency.........   [/quote]   I think you are quite right in your interpretation - the only 'reasonable' application of this legislation is to base it on residency at a certain date and the recent actions of CPAMs appear to reflect this approach.  However if anyone wishes to pursue this further with the British Embassy rather than the French authorities then the contact details are as shown and the email address is [email protected]

[quote user="Russethouse"]  I'm keeping an eye on The Connextion web site, nothing yet. Perhaps they have realised its more complicated than they thought. [/quote] Just got this news from the Embassy in Paris[:D] Dear Mr ........... For info, reassurance from the Health Ministry that the tightening of rules on healthcare provision will not be retrospective, so early retiree Brits already residing in France will be unaffected - they can continue to access healthcare. But the rules are different for newcomers - they will need medical cover pre-arrival (eg through the E106 form or if they don't qualify, then private insurance) and to cover any gap between the expiry of their E106 form and the time they turn retirement age. Full details communicated to DH/DWP/FCO below. DWP Overseas Medical Benefits line tel: (+44 191 218 1999) (Monday to Friday 8am-8pm) International Pension Centre Department for Work and Pensions Room TC001 Tyneview Park Whitley Road Newcastle upon Tyne NE98 1BA http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthadvicefortravellers/DH_4115402 I hope this helps, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Kind Regards Cecilia Beloeil Information assistant Press and Communications British Embassy 35 Rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré 75008, Paris. Tel: 01 44 51 32 81.  Fax: 01 44 51 32 34 Pour une information vivante sur le Royaume-Uni, remise à jour au quotidien, www.ambGB.com et le guide en ligne du Royaume-Uni www.i-uk.com/france  

HARD FACT ALERT   Just received this news [:D] Dear Mr ......... For info, reassurance from the Health Ministry that the tightening of rules on healthcare provision will not be retrospective, so early retiree Brits already residing in France will be unaffected - they can continue to access healthcare. But the rules are different for newcomers - they will need medical cover pre-arrival (eg through the E106 form or if they don't qualify, then private insurance) and to cover any gap between the expiry of their E106 form and the time they turn retirement age. Full details communicated to DH/DWP/FCO below. DWP Overseas Medical Benefits line tel: (+44 191 218 1999) (Monday to Friday 8am-8pm) International Pension Centre Department for Work and Pensions Room TC001 Tyneview Park Whitley Road Newcastle upon Tyne NE98 1BA http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthadvicefortravellers/DH_4115402 I hope this helps, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Kind Regards ***** ******  Information assistant Press and Communications British Embassy 35 Rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré 75008, Paris. Tel: 01 44 51 32 81.  Fax: 01 44 51 32 34 Post edited by Russethouse

[quote user="Russethouse"] Thats what comes of doing things in a hurry - sorry ! I'll try to locate the correct thread. [/quote]   Don't apologise....we have kept the MODS a 'tad' busy recently[:D]

[quote user="Russethouse"] Thats what comes of doing things in a hurry - sorry ! I'll try to locate the correct thread. [/quote]   Don't apologise....we have kept the MODS a 'tad' busy recently[:D]

[quote user="Russethouse"] Thats what comes of doing things in a hurry - sorry ! I'll try to locate the correct thread. [/quote]   Don't apologise....we have kept the MODS a 'tad' busy recently[:D]

[quote user="ErnieY"]I don't think I mentioned Incapacity Benefit did I but I take your point and also apologise for posting in this thread.[/quote]   The reference to the Incapacity Benefit was in the post from the gentleman's wife.  She explained the Incapacity Benefit viz a viz his retirement.

[quote user="Russethouse"][quote user="ams"] That seems pretty clear. Just have to wait for the letter asking for the card back. It is a shame, we spent €1,700 on a mutual that commenced on the 1st july 2007, which now is all but useless as we have to take out a fresh policy with a different company. I do not suppose the morally bankrupt Sarko will compenstate us for the loss, or for the fact that we have no cover for  seven years on pre existing problems. I wonder if it is possible to obtain cover if one registers for seeking work in france. If so how does one go about it. ams [/quote] ams, I think you should hasten slowly, have you asked your mutual company what the situation is ?Might you get a refund ?  Might  they offer a different sort of cover in this new situation ? PS looks like someone has asked : http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1019394/ShowPost.aspx#1019394[/quote]   I think that link may be wrong...doesn't it refer to this thread?

[quote user="ErnieY"] Again, not questioning that OP, but I think we all know that being pensioned out of the Police (and other public services) on health grounds at 50 odd does not always imply a disability sufficient to prevent the individual from being fit and able to do another job. [/quote] Apologies to our worthwhile Mod (Russethouse) I know we are off thread on this but I have to comment on the above. I don't know the chap to whom ErnieY refers but 'being pensioned out of the Police' and being on Incapacity Benefit are two different things.  The Incapacity Benefit does imply the ex-officer is unfit for other work.    

SUE wrote: But there is, if you look hard enough. Someone - sorry memory fails me at this point - who has posted only today says that, although they live in France under an E121, they have been requested by the UK to submit to a medical examination here in France. This is, presumably, to discover definitively whether they are still entitled to the ever-more-important E121. Sue   Sorry, I obviously didn't express myself clearly. The point I was trying to make about no change in the UK was alluding to the right to health care in UK which is based on 'residency' rather than 'employment'. As regards the case quoted, I don't think there is anything unusual in this case as the gentleman has received his E121 before the normal age of 65. As far as I was aware the DWP has always reviewed a person's entitlement to Incapacity Benefit and that is what seems to be happening here. The gentleman's wife explains that: 'He is 52 (retired living on a police pension) and I am 48.  He has an E121 due to being on Incapacity Benefit but has been called to the CPAM for a medical by the powers that be in the UK DWP.'  The dwp site http://www.dwp.gov.uk/international/sa29/medical_07.asp contains this advice If your UK benefit stops for any reason, you will no longer get healthcare cover from the UK. Also, the UK might not give you healthcare cover if: you get a pension from the country where you live or go to live; and you can get healthcare cover under that country's rules. It is possible that you may have to pay into a sickness insurance scheme in the other country. The sickness insurance authorities there will be able to tell you if you have to do this. If you can, ask them about this before you go to live there. and also says at  http://www.dwp.gov.uk/international/sa29/benefits_05.asp UK long-term Incapacity Benefit If you have been insured for sickness in the UK only, you may be able to get UK long-term Incapacity Benefit anywhere you live or stay in the EEA as long as you satisfy the rules and continue to be unfit for work. To the best of my knowledge - unless you have a severe disability or illness that falls into an exempt category - the dwp has always exercised the right to check that their client 'satisfies the rules and continues to be unfit for work' and this case does not indicate a change in that regard......but I will be happy to admit if I am wrong. Info on the medical is at http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/DG_10023130 and an insight into the questions etc may be found at http://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/benefitsinfo/incapacity_for_work.htm?gclid=CMOa9orLuY4CFQGIMAodggHeyQ As something of an aside: from 2008, and for new claimants only, a new Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) will replace Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Income Support paid on the grounds of incapacity. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmworpen/616/61607.htm      

[quote user="Puzzled"] Well isn't that great! I emailed them last week to ask for clarification, no reply as such of yet Went in the next day and was verbally assured that all would be well, despite showing them the letter. Before any body barks at me that the French debt this and all the rest of it. When I made my plans to come to France, the Carte de Sejour system had ended. Legally we had to join the CMU system which we did, Legally we could not take out private insurance. Now I will have to take out private insurance which I probably now won't be able to afford, because I have conditions now that I did not have those years ago.  So go back to the UK, some of you are thinking, but it is not that easy. I have children in school here and due to the bit of  French system that I am allowed to be in, I cannot sell my house for another two years without being hit with a huge tax bill. Feeling pretty peed off at the moment.   [/quote]   I don't think anyone has any right to bark at you.  What you have done is conform to the law.  EC Directive 2004/38 came into force at the end of April 2006.  As it was issued in 2004 I believe it was reasonable to expect Governments to announce - between 2004 and April 2006 - any plans in relation to it .  As nothing was announced by the French or UK Govts it was reasonable to expect that the CMU system was not being changed despite the directive.  There was no change to health entitlement in UK, which is based on residence ,and, similarly, there was no change in France.  That seemed equitable between these two EU 'countries'.  People moving to France from UK acted in good faith and in accordance with the legal provisions.  It now appears that things may be changing in France but there is no sign of a change in UK.  If things are to change in France then those who were resident in France before the change was introduced have very right to expect it NOT to be applied retrospectively. If it is, then I believe there is a strong case to challenge the decision legally.  HOWEVER, on a practical basis, that would take time and people will be stuck with, what I believe, is an unjust application of the rule. Bring the changes in if it is felt they are necessary (perhaps that would prompt UK to reconsider its provisions!) but don't make it apply retrospectively to those who are already registered with the CMU or who have produced their E106. The effect on them would be unreasonable and disproportionate.

Factual Info Alert I did email The British Embassy Paris on 7 September and received this Hello Thank you for contacting the Public Enquiries section of the British Embassy, Paris. Please see the website of the Departement of health: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DWP Overseas Medical Benefits line tel: (+44 191 218 1999) (Monday to Friday 8am-8pm) International Pension Centre Department for Work and Pensions Room TC001 Tyneview Park Whitley Road Newcastle upon Tyne NE98 1BA http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthadvicefortravellers/DH_4115402 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- English language service of France's CPAM tel: +33 8 20 90 42 12 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information. Kind Regards, ***** ***** Information assistant Press and Communications British Embassy 35 Rue du Faubourg Saint Honoré 75008, Paris. Tel: 01 44 51 32 81. Fax: 01 44 51 32 34 I have just replied quoting the link to the 'connexionfrance' info and asked for her comments on the article. http://www.connexionfrance.com/expatriate-news-article.php?art=35 Post edited by Russethouse

[quote user="cooperlola"] What is unclear (and many things still are) is what will happen to those who are currenly here under E106's, when they expire.  I suspect that they will be excluded too, as they have never actually contributed. [/quote] As this is one of the 'speculation permitted' threads I will add my bit! I suspect you may well be right but if that is the situation I think they would have a case to argue that, as they were accepted for 'residency' under the (now) old rules, they had a reasonable expectation of being able to join the CMU and should be permitted to do so when the E106 cover expires.  Mind you if this has to be fought for it may well come down to the number affected and whether there are enough to bring sufficient pressure to bear. Of course, the answer is for those in that position to find out the official attitude to their personal position as early as possible so they can decide a course of action. If they are told they will be excluded they can use this forum to contact people in similar circumstances and consult each other on what to do next.

[quote user="ErnieY"] One final point: as this all supposedly kicks in on sept 30th. do you think that there is any point in my OH trying to get in now at the 11th hour with her E106 refusal ? [/quote] I think the principle is 'give it a go'... after all there is nothing to lose   Have you also tried this? When you get forms E106, register the forms by giving them to the authorities who run the sickness insurance scheme in the country where you live. If you have family members who cannot be issued with form E106 in their own right, they may be covered as members of your family on your own form E106, but this is a matter for the authorities in the country where you reside. Ask them if they can include your family members when your form E106 is registered. http://www.dwp.gov.uk/international/sa29/medical_06.asp   I think cooperlola may have some experience of this  

If this is the post for the hard facts could anyone who has them please post up the reference to the 'court case' this is supposed to be based on and the decree subsequent to that which has changed the previous legislation?

[quote user="Puzzled"] Paid my CPAM a visit today and was told that my cover would continue without doubt. They even worked out the new amount that I would have to pay and checked and double checked with the relevant office when I mentioned the new 'reforms'. Obviously, I have had nothing in writing yet but they said they would write to confirm this, this week. [:D][:D][:D] [/quote] Nice to see a bit of good news!

cooperlola;  You have certainly got a point here albeit I don't think the Brit expat lobby from France has much 'pull' in UK because - in part - our votes are fragmented throughout the country.  If we could all sign up for one constituency and put that member under pressure we may have more influence! We could, however, I suppose, if it reaches that stage, open a petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ I still keep coming back to the fairness in this and hope that commonsense will prevail.  (I know what you are going to say and share the same reservations!) If you want, in my view, an example of a non-commensense decision then look at the UK policy of paying Winter Fuel Allowances to people who are living abroad (for example in France).  If we go back to the source authority for all this change then we have to look at the EC Residence Directive. (A simplified version can be read at http://www.cpag.org.uk/cro/wrb/wrb190/rights_of_residence.htm) Some pertinent points are below EC Directive 2004/38 repeals all existing EU residence directives and amends EC Regulation 1612/68, the regulation governing the rights of EU workers. The Directive introduces a simplified system of conditions governing the right of residence for all EU citizens. It gives all EU nationals a right of entry to any EU state and allows a right of residence for the first three months of arriving in a new member state. This right of residence is conditional on the person not becoming an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host member state. Social assistance is generally taken to mean income support or income-based JSA in the UK.   [EDIT: Note there is no mention of this applying to the health service in UK] To establish a right of residence after the initial three-month period, an EU national must fall within one of the following groups: employed (workers); self-employed; economically inactive people with sufficient resources to support themselves and insured against sickness; students who have sufficient means to support themselves at the start of their studies and who are insured against sickness; family members of any of the above who are accompanying or joining the EU national. The point that I keep hanging on to is that the question of 'not being a burden' and 'insuring against sickness 'etc is a test of 'residence'.  I would argue (but what does that count for!) that for those who have already become resident 'the boat has already sailed' as far as any Government is concerned and no court would support a right of residence being withdrawn in these circumstances. To me (again...what does that matter!) it follows that it would be equally inequitable to expect a Govt to be able to apply rules of residency retrospectively. There are lots of interesting articles on the more theoretical aspects of issues related to this (they can be read in lieu of sleeping tablets which might be too expensive[:)]) Here is one extract from an article of 'interest' as seen from the UK perspective: 'The new directive paves the way for further expansion of the rights of the non-economically active. The directive states that all citizens will have the right of residence (and are therefore within the scope of community law for the first time) as long as they do not become an “unreasonable burden” on the UK (current free movement directives talk simply about a “burden”). Legal experts have argued that it will be impossible to prove that any one person has become an “unreasonable” burden on a country.' As Professor Hailbronner argues: “In any individual case it will hardly ever be possible to show the unreasonableness of a burden. The social system as such cannot be substantially affected by an additional beneficiary”. He argues that the clauses of the Directive “seem to follow the Court’s line of reasoning that there are no conditions at all but only restrictions which are subject to the principle of proportionality.” Furthermore, in recent rulings the ECJ has interpreted the idea of avoiding “unreasonable burden” to mean almost the opposite of what it means in common speech. For example, the case of Grzelczyk found the court ruling that this formulation in fact implies that national governments accept that there is “a certain degree of financial solidarity between nationals of a host Member state and nationals of other Member states”. Under the directive, a job seeker or economically inactive citizen continues to enjoy the right of residence in the UK after three months as long as they do not become a “burden” on the nation’s security system. However this requirement is effectively neutered by a clause which forbids member states from expelling EU citizens simply because they are claiming benefits. The citizen would then be left in a situation where they no longer have the right to reside in the UK, but they can not be removed from the country. It is unrealistic to assume that the UK would be able to refuse to provide any assistance at all in this scenario. UK case law and the European Convention on Human Rights dictate that the Government would have to provide assistance equivalent to that given to asylum seekers on non-discrimination grounds. The directive states that once an EU citizen has done any form of employment in the host state, including a short fixed term contract, then he will be entitled for at least 6 months to the same social security benefits as a home national. Once an EU citizen has been employed for a year in the UK he will be entitled to equal rights to social security payments.' (page 7ff http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/freemovement.pdf) So I reckon that rather than open this can of worms, if I was setting the policy, I would cut my losses and make sure that the new rules applied only to people who were 'en route' to residency NOT already in residence. Having said all this we all know that nothing is predictable with politically tainted decisions.  As I have said, I support the policy but not it being applied retrospectively. However, applying it retrospectively would probably not be an unpopular move in the eyes of the majority of French residents. Maybe the question of the application retrospectively could be the foundation of any petition on the website?  http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/   EDIT: Sorry about the weird change in font above - it wont do what it is told for some reason!

[quote user="cooperlola"] Makfai, I don't think, sadly, that anybody who is already established here can ever assume that the laws of the land to which they have moved will never change.  It's a nice idea but I would not bank on it. [/quote]   I do, regrettably, share you reservation[:(]  That is why I tried to make it clear that I did not wish to raise false hopes. So saying, while laws may change, there are tests of 'reasonableness' to be applied to their application.  It is this which I was trying to discuss.  The trouble is it is not unusual for Governments (and I don't mean necessarily the French) to ignore the 'reasonableness' test until compelled to do so by the courts.  In this case I would like to think - but never like to give any govt too much credit for foresight and commonsense - that the administrators could foresee the possibility of a legal challenge supported by a lot of people who were already resident in France if this was applied retrospectively. Regrettably, however, the Govt may be prepared to run the risk because, I suspect, any such legal challenge would create a backlash of opinion from French nationals some of whom don't seem too keen on the Brits!

I think the main issue is simple. The court ruling is (in my view) commonsense so it comes down to Will any change be applied retrospectively? I don't see the new policy being unfair to people who have not yet moved permanently to France because they can make a choice in the full knowledge of their position in regard to Health Care.  It only becomes a problem if it is applied retrospectively to those who became resident in good faith under different rules and who would under the new rules be unable to fund Health Cover.  I believe it would be inequitable to apply it retrospectively because of the disproportionate 'penalty' (perhaps having to relocate?) it could create for some people.  However, I am not making the rules!  If it was applied retrospectively I could foresee a lot of people banding together to fund a legal challenge to such a decision.

I hate adding to the speculation but can't help getting drawn into this debate because of its significance![:$]  So saying I have to hold my hands up to the fact that I know no more than the next person and what I am saying below is purely speculative.  What I am suggesting below might appear logical to me but that does not mean that the people who are making the actual decisions are thinking the same way! I would have thought that the European Court - which has generally adopted the principles of fairness/equitability etc - would come down on the side of people who were already resident before the law came in and would rule that it would not be equitable to apply the rule retrospectively to those people.  The reasoning in part for this is that the effect of any rule applied retrospectively would have a disproportionate effect on a significant number of people who had relocated in good faith and in accordance with principles applying at that time.  However, as the court has already ruled on the principle that people should not be a burden (and I support the decision), there would be nothing to prevent the new health care rules being applied to 'new' residents.The Government would just have to sort out the policy on the current 8% contribution to the CMU paid by all over the basic threshold for household income If such an attitude by the court was foreseen by a Government then the Government's first step would - before it introduced the health care rules on residents - be to mount an exercise to identify who was actually 'resident' .  From what I can see, this process seems to be akin to the one we are witnessing now where information is being gathered but, as cooperlola said...how many people who were already members of CMU have come forward to show that they have had their eligibility for health care rescinded? It is a worrying time but as cynical as I am I do not see this being applied retrospectively; OR if it is applied retrospectively,  without some provision being introduced to mitigate inequitable adverse effects on genuine residents.  I do of course reserve the right to delete this post and deny its existence if I am wrong![:D]

I agree with cooperlola's approach here.  I can't blame the French Govt for bringing in something which allows them to have a good look at who is contributing to the tax system in France be it for health or anything else. It is quite clear from reading posts here and elsewhere that some people mistakenly think that because they pay tax elsewhere (e.g. in UK) they don't have to declare this income in a French Tax return.  There will be some who do this in error but there will be others who are prepared to try to avoid contributing to the French tax system but are happy to use the health etc services the country offers.  If these are flushed out by this process I will lose no sleep over that. Clearly, we will have to wait and see what comes of this because the UK Press reports are clearly inaccurate in implying that the Health System is 'free' - in which case they may be building this up more than is justified. It does seem prudent, however, to keep a close eye on this and to use it as a prompt to review alternatives.......whilst at the same time trying to keep the stress levels down!  Maybe a trip to the doctor for some medication?????[:)]

[quote user="cooperlola"]Makfai you are right.  But in addition you pay the Social Charges (the tax to pay off the French national debt which Ron mentions) which amount to 8% of your unearned income and a smaller percentage of any non-state pension - sorry can't remember what this is but it's not huge.  I think it's the fact that the 8% figure comes into both that confuses everybody![/quote] The French Health Service provides good service and we support a contribution system.  However, if the new criterion for access to the CMU is 'non-employed' as opposed to 'non-contributing' then it appears to create a dichotomy.  We would still be contributing to the CMU (via the 8% is charged on all household income above the threshold of €7,083 per household/annum) but we would also be in the category of  'non-employed.'   This would create a bizarre situation where we would be contributing to the CMU but excluded from its services so having to take out personal insurance in addition to the contributions.[8-)]