Chris
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Chris
-
-
It's raining and so can't get on with work outside! I've just been looking at some other EU countries' embassy sites and guess what, no mention of changing medical cover for German or Dutch citizens coming to France, as far as I can see. Are the British being singled out?Went one step further and looked at French Consulate in London. Below is the relevant extract:You are planning to move before you get your state pension (eg: you are already in receipt of your private pension)You should apply for a form E106 (medical cover for up to 2 years)- see D.S.S. - Alternatively, a private insurance or voluntarycontributions should be considered when the E106 expires or if you havenot reached the age of state retirement (Contact your local Frenchsocial security office).NB the sentence "..Alternatively .....voluntary contributions when 106 expires..." I guess this means those that many have been making to URSSAF for CMU. Also note no mention of Actif or Non-actif or warning that changes are afoot!Chris
-
No, Ron, I'm not expecting a laugh, hence 'fun' in quotes! I read 'Sunshine's' post elsewhere and I agree that we should blast the embassy in Paris with our concerns and specific requests for solid information on our various positions; what is the situation now, or a date when they can give it? What is the UK government planning to do the ensure our safety under EU directives etc? What contingency plans are in place to amend UK regulations to ensure the status quo? 'When good men do nothing .....' For Sarko, atacking health provision is a quick and easy tool in his immigration control tool box. It will not end there. What else is in the pipeline to discourage immigrants, when it is clear that non compliance with EU directives and law is no problem? ,,,, and it's now pouring with rain!Chris
-
Yes and I too, but the state now appears only to want my cash if I earn it now through sweat of my brow until retirement age. Absolute nonsense. My gite 'business' doesn't count as a proper job, or so other posts reveal, so I am scuppered there. More nonsense. I am apparently, therefore, by its definition, inactif and unemployed; my government pension and declared gite income not being relevant to whether or not I may join the CMU through contributions. Therefore, it follows that I will be totally dependant on my wife's government pension and OAP when she gets them. The state can't have it both ways: either I have sufficient revenue to contribute in my own right so that I am no more of a burden than anyone working, or I am not, and am my wife's dependant.Incidentally, when I rang DWP yesterday to check on my status on her E121, I was told that I was not shown as a dependent. After checking her 121 at their end, DWP are sending a replacement E121 now showing me as such. I did not ask to be made a dependent but it seemed to be assumed that I would be. It will be 'fun' returning to the CPAM and inviting them to tear up the original and replace it with the new one.Whether contibutions to NI, URSSAF and the amount of cash passed from UK to France to pay for us, is adiscussion 'above our pay scale' and irrelevant. The only valid question is am I entitled to an E107 to be a dependent on her E121. The answer from those at DWP, paid and qualified to answer, seems to be that I am. We are spending time exchanging thoughts, and concerns, swapping experiences and getting steamed up at our own computers. At the end of September I suspect the crunch will come (assuming it's coming at all). What do we do then? Storming the Bastille has already been done; it's not there anymore and would perhaps be the wrong target. Ensuring that the British Embassy and UK MEPs are aware of our 'unrest' might be a good start. There are supposedly over 250,000 UK citizens in France plus other EU nationals. This is not an insignificant number to concentrate the politcal mind. Perhaps a start towards coordination might be for one of the 'French' newspapers; Connexion or French News to exercise some good jounalism and get going on mobilising 'the troops' and making life less comfortable for those in Brussels and Westminster who are paid to solve problems. I understand that many posters have sought to give answers to others' comments and fears. Some are clearly well informed and intentioned. This sudden change of circumstances has made many of us feel like rabbits caught in the headlights and we are going down the 'victim' route, apparently accepting what might happen. Scanning the posts, there is sufficient evidence out there now to show that 'something' unpleasant is afoot and it is time to plan for the offensive, if it is required, after 30 September. There must be a retired legal brain out there who might enjoy the challenge of just one more brief!Chris (becoming Mr Angry from Charente!)
-
Will,Your post seemed to run contrary to good professional advice I had been given and prompted me to ring Newcastle to confirm that I, at 59, will come under the cover of my wife's E121 starting this November. The answer was an emphatic yes, provided I had been included as a dependent on the E121. Actually, I completed the E121 and it seems I had not done this. A replacement form will be in the post tonight and then another trip to the CPAM.So, the upshot seems to be that, as my French financial adviser quite correctly briefed me a few months ago, and confirmed by Newcastle a few minutes ago, I will continue to enjoy the cover of the CMU via my wife's E121.Of course Sarko and his hoods can do anything they like in the meantime, and round up all blond, blue eyed foreigners for deportation, but I am not thinking about that yet and remaining positive.Chris
-
Please don't bother reading this if you want good news or new facts . It's just that I too have been pondering in a non lawyer-like way. The phrases "must have health cover" and "not be a burden" and "sufficient resources" keep popping up in much of the verbage.Some of my ponderings, for what they are worth:When we applied, years ago for our Cartes de Sejour we had to show sufficient reources etc, and we were granted cards. Someone must have decided that we had sufficient resources.We are not a burden in that we complete tax returns and URSSAF forms each year, and consequently we contribute to the CMU in exactly the same way as all non-active and active French citizens with sufficient resources.Let us remember that much of this brouhaha has been aimed at weeding out those who have managed to so 'organise' their finances so as to avoid contributing, and quite right too!(It is a pity that similar measures cannot be taken in the UK, but that is not our problem!)Perhaps the problem has been caused through the sloppy use of the word 'burden' which I believe makes more sense when applied to the group of non-contributors. An affilliate of the state health system cannot be described as a burden after making the contributions demanded, otherwise it would apply to all those residing legally in France and negates the whole purpose of a public health service. If it's not sufficient,do the sums and ask us to pay even more!Sufficient resources surely means with an income sufficient to trigger contributions to the CMU. Those who arrive here with no apparent income are a burden, in that they are too 'poor' to contribute and so they qualify for the gamut of state aid including CMU etc. This is an understable position for any government to have, particularly during this period of expansion, provided it is within the framework of national and european law, which for me would be a voyage into the fog to interpret. Provided revenue is legally gained, I cannot understand what difference it makes whether it derives from active employment or non active sources such as a pension. It smacks of a neo nazi pique at those who have retired early and contrary to the politicians' ( both Sarko and Brown) drive to keep us all working until we dropI am optimimistic that all will become clear and be sorted. There are too many inconsistencies that are shouting to be challenged.On the other side of the Channel, why does UK only fund 106 holders for 2 year? If we were still in UK they would pick up the tab for medical costs whether we paid NI contributions or not. We are not costing them a penny after the 2 years as we are here paying our own way here. Why cannot the UK continue coughing up; they will do when we reach 60/65. Make us continue to pay UK NI contributions if that's is a problem for them! It is not logical and unjustifiable, but I suppose that will have to be another battle!! We are weeks away from being 60 and 'Senior Management's' E121 is in the system, so we shall, I hope, be OK (provided the E107 works for me!), but this fight involves principles that cannot be ignored and if someone cleverer than I decides to take them all on, I shall be there, with a contribution to the 'fund' as required!!!My Regiment's motto was "nec aspera terrent" - "neither do hardships deter", so let's up and 'at 'em!! (Sorry about that I got quite carried away!)Chris
-
Hi ErnieYAs with the poster yesterday, when I try to follow the link back to email a reply I am told the post does not exist and I can't answer.Have found your post here and can give the insurance chap's tel which is 0553467747Good luck
-
Hi Sweet17,Tried to reply via the link but couldn't He is on 0553 467 747 and speaks perfect English. He's an independent insurance broker who has the advantage of having worked in UK so knows his stuff. He helped me with CPAM and also getting into the tax system. I think he is brilliant and has saved me by getting best insurance deals on car camper and house etc.Good luck.
-
Hello Cooperola et alWe had the letter a couple of weeks ago( we've lived since 2000). I sent everything but inlcuded the CPAM own factures for the year showing all our visits etc to the Drs, arguing that these prove by date, that we have been in residence throughout the year. I included a covering letter arguing that EDF bills merely show that I pay the bills and not that I use the electricity by living here! I also reminded them that Cartes de séjour are no longer required, though I did send copies of ours. My letter was slightly barbed in tone and now wish I had backed off a bit. However, my French independent financial chap, who is brilliant at all things financial and insurance, contacted CPAM Charente and assures me that we shall continue to able to "cotise" and remain in the CMU. I wonder if that might be an indication that if you are already 'in' you will stay 'in', but that newcomers will not be allowed to join. That would seem to be the only proper way for the authorities to proceed as any retrospective action is frought with problems, not least, possible legal class action in the European court ( I hope).We shall in November transfer to E121 anyaway and today received notice of 'Her' pension etc and the E121 to give to the CPAM, so for us no worries, but I am just very sorry for the worry and frustration caused to so many of my fellow immigrants.
-
I understand the position to be this. Whether one is employed, self employed or retired is not the point It is whether income is declared or not. If it is not, then the CPAM cannot calculate whether the applicant should contribute or not. I do not believe Le Monde article is saying that, though I could be wrong and the line " fermeté vis-à-vis de certains inactifs aux revenus non identifiés qui abuseraient, volontairement ou non, de la CMU...." It is the "unidentified revenue" which seems to be the key, not that they are not employed for whatever reason .
-
I am no expert, hence my activity today to try and find out. However, looking at a previous post and the quote from le Monde "....la fermeté vis-à-vis de certains inactifs aux revenus non identifiés qui abuseraient, volontairement ou non, de la CMU...." suggests that is the case and those who are straight will have nothing to fear.That does not mean that individual CPAMs will not put their own interpretation on things, and that is where the struggle may start for some folk. Certainly the paperwork that I have just completed for my 2008 contributions made no mention of cutting me off and simply asked for proof of residency, tax demand and copy of passport.Everything was as normal as previous years.I am an optimist and merely pass on the information I have gleaned today which is more authoritative than what was no more than a free advert for an insuarance company in the CONNEXION article
-
I think it is quite straightforward. There have been many immigrants of all types who have abused the system in that either they do not complete a tax return, so appear not to have any revenue on which the CPAM can base their contribution, or they so 'manage' their income to stay under the threshold where contributions start. These people have for some reason been accepted into the system, have had Cartes Vitales and cheated the rest us us who have played a straight bat. Any new amendment decree is I think to close that loophole (thankfully) Those immigrants who qualify ie from EU member states with an E106, who fill in a tax return and contribute to the cost via URSSAF (CPAM) will remain eligible, provided that they can prove that they satisfy the stable residency criteria. That of course includes those under retirement age and not in employment.I suggest anyone who is still not clear contacts the British Embassy, as I did earlier today.
-
Having read the article 'Thousands of expats lose access to French state healthcare cover' in September's issue of CONNEXION, I was shocked and not a little worried.The editor stands by the article and the insurance salesman's quoted opinion of the 'facts'.I contacted the British Embassy today and the reply is below."Ireceived your fax earlier today. I have been told that an articleappeared in the British press last Sunday (Sunday Times) indicatingthat there were changes afoot.Ispoke to a French journalist yesterday who assured me that, followingdiscussions with the CNAM (Centre National d'Assurance Maladie, HQ forCPAMs) in Paris, nothing will be changing in effect. They confirmedthat if foreigners, who have not yet reached the accepted retirementage applied in their respective countries, decide to come and live inFrance, as long as they comply with the regulations (i.e.completing taxreturns, paying their contributions, etc), they will continue to beable to sign on and benefit from the CMU.TheEmbassy is of course investigating these allegations but we have noindication of a "new law" coming into effect.Regards,Alison de Grailly , Vice-Consul ,British Consulate, 353 Boulevard Président Wilson, 33073 BORDEAUX CEDEXTel +(0)5 57 22 21 18 "The moral is: Do you trust politicians, second hand car salesmen,estate agents, insurance salesmen or journalists always to tell thetruth?I hope this helps anyone, who is not a cheat, to continue to receive the healthcare to which they are entitled
BREAKING NEWS ON EXPAT HEALTH COVER
in Changes to Healthcare Entitlement, CPAM, CMU and Cartes Vitales
Posted