Jump to content

Richard

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Richard's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. I agree. We are the victims of unbelievable incompetence from the French government (I use the word 'government' loosely). It reminds me of the swimming pool security 'fiasco' two or three years ago. The final and definitive regualtions weren't announced until something like the 19th December and had to be complied with, by the probably hundreds of thousands of pool owners affected, by 1st January (later 'extended' to May, after it became apparent, even to them, that what they had ordered was impossible). Do these people live in another world?? I believe they do. I noted the comments of the 'government' spokesperson, quoted elsewhere. "Ms Gaillard said: 'The text is still being negotiated. Everything can change until we get a final signature on the agreements from the health minister. We hope to be as quick as possible as we understand people have a lot of questions.' " You would think, (wouldn't you???!!!) that they'd actually have got that 'final signature' before announcing the changes, and so would have had the answers in place in advance of the questions - or do they REALLY make it up as they go along??
  2. Thanks for your reply. The information contained within the 4 sections headed 'Droit au séjour permanent' that you've included in your reply is precisely what I enclosed with my application. It was the wording in the last section, 'valable vingt ans' that had been changed by hand in the returned documents, so it had obviously been READ. Perhaps it's just 'policy' to say 'non'.
  3. [quote user="Helen"]  My husbands expired carte says pensionnne and the new five year EU one is supposed to read  "CE - séjour permanent - toutes activités professionnelles", valable vingt ans. Thats changed because they can no longer attempt to prevent an EU citizen from taking up employment here.  [/quote] Just had all my paperwork, applying for the CE - sejour permanent, returned to me. It was accompanied by a document outlining the fact that it was no longer necessary for an EU citizen to have a card, which also contained a portion of highlighted text within a short paragraph " Un décret en Conseil d'Etat permettra aux personnes concernées qui le souhaiteraient, d'obtenir un titre de séjour, malgré cette dispense, sous certaines conditions.(the next sentence is the one highlighted by the Préfecture) En l'absence de la parution de ce décret, âucun titre peut être délivré. I take it this means that I'm wasting my time applying. Interestingly (?) I'd included a copy of the conditions leading to my 'entitlement' to the CE (taken from the government website) along with my documents. The line "valable vingt ans" in the original text had been crossed out and changed to "10 ans (sauf les retraité)" so obviously, whoever had 'rejected' my application had actually taken the time to read the 'legislation' and 'correct' it before turning me down.
  4. I see the Connexion have posted another update (8th November), quoting Stéphanie Gaillard re the entitlement of non-EU citizens to health cover.
  5. [quote user="Jonzjob"]Have a look at this post of mine. It gives more detail. http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/797530/ShowPost.aspx [/quote] Thanks for that. I have to say that before following your link I was beginning to feel like a bit of a vandal, having had the trees cut down. However, having now read other people's experiences and comments, I'm feeling better. From what I have seen and read, removing the trees was clearly the only complete and permanent solution to this potentially very nasty problem.
  6. We moved house recently and now have land containing a large number of trees, mainly oak, but some pine. We also have a small dog, a Westie, and a cat. Friends had told us of their experiences when their terrier became involved with a line of processional caterpillars, lost part of its tongue, could have died. We saw that some of the pines close to the house did, in fact, contain 'nests' and sought advice on the best way to deal with them. Given that these were fairly tall trees, removing the 'nests' wasn't practical and so we've now had 16 of the pines closest to the house felled and removed. This was done at the beginning of this week, timed to be carried out before new caterpillars created new colonies. However, we did note what appeared to be a new 'nest' in one of the trees. We understand that the 'threat' from the caterpillars lasts from now until about March, with February and March being potentially the most problematic.We hope that any nests that are built in the pines a little further away from the house won't pose so much of a threat to our animals, which tend to stay pretty close unless accompanied by one of us. My question is this. Apart from rushing to the vets, is there anything that we can have 'standing by' to treat the dog or the cat if they do come into contact with any caterpillars? From what I've read, prompt action is essential and minutes may be crucial if the animal starts to 'fit'. Any advice would be appreciated.
  7. [quote user="Maggie"]Sorry, my mistake, I meant to write 'at least the 5 year ruling has almost been confirmed at last'.  I should have checked before I posted [:$][/quote] There appears to be an 'update' on the Connexion website, dated 6th November. Is this 'new' news or just re-confirmation of 'old' news? Ooops - sorry, seems I'm a bit late with this - didn't read all the previous posts.
  8. [quote user="Maggie"]Thanks SD ... you have kindly confirmed what we wondered - on the positive side, at the least the 5 year ruling has been confirmed at last! Many thanks [/quote] I haven't seen anything that confirms it definitively yet - apart from the Connexion article. Have I missed something somewhere? As far as the 'permanent' TdS is concerned, is there actually a 'right' to be issued with one, i.e. if you choose to ask for one, it cannot simply be 'refused', or am I misinterpreting the rules?
  9. Richard

    Warfarin

    The drug that is used here is Previscan. I don't think there's any alternative.
  10. [quote user="Glyn"]The article on the Connexion may be 'latest news' but as far as I can make out it is just a reprint of what was printed in their November edition. Bearing in mind this must have gone to press at least a week ago and a lot of the quotes are from correspondence dated early October I am not sure it actually confirms much. Glyn [/quote] Yes, I realise that it's just repeating what's in the newspaper, but I was hoping that, as they chose not to put it onto their website until 1st November, some time after the publication of the newspaper, it may, in fact, have been actually confirming what had already been published, not simply repeating it. I thought, perhaps, they knew something that we didn't. Obviously not!
  11. I see that confirmation that the 5-year rule will apply has now been posted on the Connexion website as 'latest news'.
  12. As I see it, there will be no 'winners' if these proposals go through unreformed. No one will be 'better off', certainly not in the true sense of the words. OK, some folk who are in good health, and have healthy incomes to boot, may save a few hundred Euros by 'going private' but whatever they save in the short-term will be outweighed a hundred times if they become chronically sick. Who in their right mind wants to take that sort of gamble - with their health??!! This is not like 'going private' in the UK where, if your insurer won't pay, you can always fall back on the NHS. Here there will be no fall-back, no catch-all. If your insurer won't pay and you CAN'T pay, that's it. Tough luck, ring the undertaker!! Losing the right to access the state health service is a massive blow to everyone concerned and shouldn't be viewed in terms of winners and losers. Everyone is a loser when healthcare becomes dependent upon the say-so of a money-making enterprise, more interested in profits than people. Is it really a myth that these companies employ more people to invesigate ways of avoiding making payment than they do to settle claims?? They are not benevolent societies - they will not pay unless they HAVE to, and they will explore any and every avenue that might allow them to avoid making payment. On top of which, with typical excesses of €120 Euros per claim, what are you actually getting for your money? Visits to the doctor won't be covered, nor the dentist, routine x-rays, scans. How ill do you want to be before you start to get something back? For any kind of peace of mind there is absolutely no alternative but to remain in the State system - at almost any price.
  13. [quote user="ColinE"]Hi Richard I get some think like this with my set up in the UK, I believe its static build up, try disconnecting from the mains for a short while, then try again, I have a multi room set up, it all seem to start with this, some times I get nothing, so go through the same routine, this normally sorts it. [/quote] Thanks, I'll try that, although the problem has remained constant throughout many 'box-swiches', cable changes, etc. Yes, the Skybox is a Grundig, using the '£20' Skycard (card bought about 3 - 4 years ago).
  14. We've recently moved and had a new dish installation. We have two 'digiboxes' fed from a dual head on the dish (perhaps, more correctly, a split head - sold as such, not just 2 cables to 1 head). One digibox is a Skybox around 5 years old, the other is a FTA box around 2 years old. The problem that we're encountering is confined to the Skybox, which for certain channels, notably BBC2 and News24, initially displays the message 'No satellite signal being received' but then, after perhaps a minute or so, the station appears and picture quality is fine. The FTA box works correctly on all channels all the time. It's not a great problem and we can live with it, just a matter of waiting for the programme to appear, but I wondered if it was a 'known' problem, either with older boxes or with the dual head set-up and whether there is likely to be any simple remedy (apart from buying a new box!)
  15. [quote user="Helen"] Can you perhaps add this? English translation of the social security statement ( from  the French embassy in the UK) [/quote] I notice that there's no mention whatsoever af any '5 year rule'.
×
×
  • Create New...