Richard

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??

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'.

[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.

I see the Connexion have posted another update (8th November), quoting Stéphanie Gaillard re the entitlement of non-EU citizens to health cover.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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?

The drug that is used here is Previscan. I don't think there's any alternative.

[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!

I see that confirmation that the 5-year rule will apply has now been posted on the Connexion website as 'latest news'.

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.

[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).

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!)

[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'.

[quote user="Quillan"]To be honest I can't see writing to an English MEP is going to do much good as history has shown once the French have made their mind up they don't often, if at all, change it. [/quote] I don't necessarily agree. Of course, they won't change their minds voluntarily, but there are numerous occasions when 'laws' have been changed, modified or repealed due to pressure from those who considered themselves to be adversely affected by them. Whilst I do agree that 'we' may not have the same clout as the French farmers or students, those affected by these changes shouldn't just throw in the towel and 'go home'. Governments (including the UK government) sometimes pass laws and pieces of legislation that are successfully challenged because they are either ill thought out, unfairly implemented or simply unreasonable. Let's wait and see what the considered legal opinion is, now that the final details appear to be known. It may well be worthy of a challenge - and just think of the DELAY if it has to go to the European Court!!

It seems sad that some feel it necessary to make a personal dig, this is, after all, a discussion forum. The previous dig was ignored "smacks of I fought for you in the war etc etc".  I don't think that you need to apologise or to explain anything to anyone on here. My own experience is that, quite often, those who have most to say about what others should or shouldn't be doing are those least likely to be doing anything themselves.

Please don't think that I'm 'having a go' at anyone, or any particular group of people - I'm not. I fully understand that contributions are high for those who are working - we make 'self-employed' contributions ourselves. I do not expect to be affected by these changes, I am simply expressing concern for those people who have built a life here based around what they understood they were entitled to, were given (or rather, paid for), but which is now to be taken away from them, virtually on a whim. That's all.

[quote user="Will"] Realistically again, and putting it bluntly, is Britain likely to pay towards the health cover for those of its citizens who have chosen to abandon its shores for sunnier climes? I can't see it, and as an NI payer myself, I don't see why it should.  [/quote] Quite agree with you - or do you mean that it's OK for Britain to continue to use NI contributions to support those who've abandoned its shores clutching their E121's - and it's just 'everyone else' who shouldn't get anything. I've been following this topic for some time now and am interested to see that it has effectively become divided into two camps. There are those for whom it was intended, genuinely worried about the impending changes to the healthcare system and how it will affect them, and those sitting smugly behind their E121's (for the time being??) telling the others that 'that's life' and, if you choose to live abroad, the government can do pretty much what it likes and that everyone should simply find a few extra 000's of Euros, pay up and think themselves lucky to be here. Life is not, of course, quite as simple as that. What has been taken away, or is likely to be taken away, CANNOT be replaced. No amount of money will buy private health insurance that will cover pre-existing conditions. Ongoing treatment is not covered, further complications are not covered, drugs are not covered. For many, if not most of those affected by these changes, this creates an insurmountable problem. It is not simply a question of swapping from 'State' to 'Private', it is a question of swapping from 'State' to nothing!! I would be VERY interested to read the reactions of some of the contributors here if THEIR benefits were withdrawn in the manner that they have been for 'early-retirers'. I suspect that there would be considerably less 'understanding' if the French government ceased to accept the E121 on the grounds that the contribution that accompanies it is insufficient, or the UK stopped issuing them on the basis that 'if you choose to abandon its shores for sunnier climes' you're on your own - AND made it retrospective!! Everyone affected by these changes thought that they were in a secure and continuing healthcare environment. They based their move to France and their budgets around their entitlement to become a contributing member of the French healthcare system - and don't forget, they weren't simply 'accepted' into the system, they were FORCED into it. There was no option. However, they are now being told that it was all a 'mistake' on the part of the French authorities and that this particular group of people should never have been allowed to join in the first place. If a mistake HAS been made, it has been made by the French authorities, no one else, and it is up to them to deal with it in such a way that innocent people aren't penalised - particularly over something so fundamentally important as healthcare. I agree that there is a case for not enrolling 'new' people into the system but I cannot, for the life of me, see how you can simply 'force out' everyone that you previously 'forced in' - and leave them high and dry. For many people this is a life-changing, perhaps even a life-threatening situation, and should be recognised as such. What is needed here is advice, support and a plan of action for those who are affected - not unhelpful comments and patronising statements from those who aren't.

My first post. Does anyone know any Dutch, Belgian, German 'immigrants' who are in the same position, i.e. early-retired, non-working? What are they saying? Are they affected in the same way (if not, why not?) and what are THEY doing about it? Do they actually KNOW about it? Whatever influence or pressure that they can bring to bear can only be beneficial and will help everyone. Rather than start looking for private health insurance, surely it would be better to start setting in motion some united opposition to what is clearly an ill-conceived, illogical (how very French!!) and probably illegal piece of 'legislation' that will have potentially catastrophic consequences for perhaps thousands of EU citizens currently living quite lawfully in France. Has anyone contacted an MEP? I have to say that, watching the situation unfold over the past week or so, the end result appears to coincide with the information given by my own CPAM about a week or ten days ago. The 'head man' there said that, although he didn't have the final details, in future all cotisations would be defined as 'working' or 'non-working'. If they're 'working' (employed or self-employed) you're unaffected. If they're non-working, you'll be taken out of the system. Clearly things have moved on a little and more details (6 months grace) are now known. He also said, and this is why I asked my first question about other nationalities, that he and most of his colleagues were horrified that this was about to happen to people who were legitimately paying into the system as they had been required to do and were now about to be excluded through absolutely no fault of their own. He HOPED that there would be loud and persistent protests about the situation and thought that, if there were, the government may well 'back-peddle', at least to the point of allowing existing subscribers to remain in the healthcare system. Is there any chance that the same French 'official' dealing with this situation perhaps also oversaw the implementaion of the swimming pool security regulations a couple of years ago??!!