E121

[gosub]

[quote user="Benjamin"]Cooperlola wrote:

"Like it or not, it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sex"

Sorry to introduce this into an E121 thread but the UK government already do this with the Adult Dependency Increase part of the State Retirement Pension. A male pensioner can claim for his wife but a female pensioner cannot claim for her husband. If they are getting away with it on that one how long will it be before they start discriminating in other areas?[/quote]

Yes, I have been through that one, maybe I will be too ga-ga to worry about the next thing, that they dream up[:D]

[Roz]

[quote user="Patf"]

Remember that once you or your spouse qualifies

for an E121, what this means in practical terms is that the british

government pays approx. £2500* per year for each of you to the french

health service. Whether you consume more or less than this amount of

health care or not.

This entitles you to (normally) 60-70% of the cost of the care. For

the rest you need to pay for "topup" insurance. And more for dental

care, specs etc.

You never get to the luxury of 100% cover given in the UK to pensioners.

* this is the figure I was given 2 years ago.

ps to go back to the original question - I got my E121 first .

Newcastle sent an extra form for husband and when we went to the CPAM

with the forms all they wanted was our marriage certficate to prove his

entitlement. CPAMs might vary in their requirements.

[/quote]

That's a bit of a blow!! I was hoping we wouldn't have to have top-up insurance once I reached the magic number! Hmmm still trying to convince my O/H that we are financially better off here..  so when my OA pension is added to his private pension next year, we might save a bit on our URSSAF bill, but will probably pay even more in Contributions Sociale?? Heyho! It's always swings and roundabouts, isn't it!

Thanks for all your input lovely people! :)

[AnOther]

The need for top up insurance is nothing to do with the topic at hand !

[LisaJ]

Just to clarify - I am not working here now, I worked for 6 hours a week for eight months a couple of years ago. I understand that I must therefore claim my OAP from France and they will collect my UK pension for me, but I am still not sure about the E121. I have yet to have my interview with CRAM so maybe it will all become clear then, but in the meantime if anyone knows what happens, I would be very grateful for the information.

regards

L

[Benjamin]

Roz

If you are in receipt of a UK E121 issued to you as a qualifying State Pensioner then you will only get the same refund as a French person (mainly in the range of 60-70%). You can either take a chance and not insure the rest of the costs or you will need to buy a top up insurance. This assumes you were here before October 2007.

If you are in receipt of an E121 issued for others reasons i e incapacity, then you may qualify for 100% reimbursement for the majority of your health costs.

[Roz]

[quote user="AnOther"]The need for top up insurance is nothing to do with the topic at hand !

[/quote]

I was responding to patf's post, dearest, I've now included it in  my post to make it clearer.. and I have smacked my cyber wrist for straying from the path of the OP. [kiss]

[Roz]

[quote user="Benjamin"]Roz

If you are in receipt of a UK E121 issued to you as a qualifying State Pensioner then you will only get the same refund as a French person (mainly in the range of 60-70%). You can either take a chance and not insure the rest of the costs or you will need to buy a top up insurance. This assumes you were here before October 2007.

If you are in receipt of an E121 issued for others reasons i e incapacity, then you may qualify for 100% reimbursement for the majority of your health costs.

[/quote]

Thanks Benjamin, it's all becoming clear... such a pity reaching that certain age seems to be accompanied by a switching to those new long-life bulbs.. it takes so much longer for the light to actually come on!!

[AnOther]

[quote user="Roz"][quote user="AnOther"]The need for top up insurance is nothing to do with the topic at hand ![/quote]

I was responding to patf's post, dearest, I've now included it in  my post to make it clearer.. and I have smacked my cyber wrist for straying from the path of the OP. [kiss]

[/quote]Sorry if you misunderstood me Roz, it wasn't meant as an admonishment for going off topic at all but a statement that an E121 and top up insurance were unrelated subjects [kiss]

[Judith]

[quote user="AnOther"] As I've said elsewhere it's preposterous and illogical to say that a husband suddenly becomes dependent on his wife simply because she turns 60 and draws a UK state pension !

[/quote]

Cooperlola has already answered this one better than I can, but really, how can you be so old-fashioned to think this.  Any man who happens not to be working may at some time or another in his life be dependent on a working wife.  In the 21st century, I had hopes that this sort of blinkered thinking might be past.

I'm later replying as I've been busy for a few days, but this one made me see red!!!

And as already has been said, we are talking about healthcare and the removal of needing to pay for assurance - surely anybody in the those circimstances where they could not get their own entitlement and would otherwise have to pay, would be grateful to be a dependent.  Or is it the fact of being dependant that you do not like???

And if it had been my husband, he'd have been delighted to be "dependent" on me!!!!

[Russethouse]

 [8-)]  Isn't Coops  point that the fact of being 60 (the wifes birthday) doesn't make a difference, they either are dependent or not, the 60th birthday  isn't relevant ??

[AnOther]

Don't see why this should upset you so Judith or what's old fashioned.

I don't disagree with your scenario but take the opposite, and frankly far more common one, where a husband has been the major bread winner all their married life whilst the wife has been doing the housewife\mother bit (not denigrating that in any sense whatsoever BTW) and has worked but possibly not enough to have built up much of a state pension of her own. They are comfortably off but as the principal earner she is clearly HIS dependent yet when she turns 60 and draws a meagre UK pension suddenly the roles are reversed, where is the logic in that is my point.

Bloody good luck I say to to anyone who can get their health cover paid for, by whatever legitimate means, and I can assure you that I will have absolutely no problems whatsoever in becoming my wife's dependent in due course, indeed I am positively looking forward to it !

[cooperlola]

Well, AnOther, you appear to have demonstrated the argument to counter you point rather well.  Sorry, but in the scenario you describe, the husband has been completely dependent upon his wife to bring up the kids and look after the house because as you imply in your vaguely patronising way, both jobs have equal merit and value, even if one isn't actually paid for in hard currency.   There are many different types of dependency, you know.  Happily the law in this case (unlike in some others which other posters mentioned) has a less blinkered view than some individuals do.  (No names, no pack drill.)

[AnOther]

Woahhhh, ease up ladies [:-))] I'm not trying to be patronising, vaguely or otherwise, you've got completely the wrong end of the stick !!!!!!

I am talking about financial dependency as it applies to E121's and spouses, nothing else, and if one person is the financial provider then the other is defato financially dependent on them, where is the problem with saying that. I made no judgement as to the value of each partners contribution or worth and in fact was at pains to be fair in my reply to Judith - 'doing the housewife\mother bit (not denigrating that in any sense whatsoever BTW) - how much clearer could I have made it ?

I understand that even the French are looking into dependency as applied to French nationals so some discussion as to the definition of the word in that context would not seem at all out of order.

[Judith]

And strangely, almost all my female acquaintances and friends do not fall into that position - ie of being financially dependent on the husband.  In almost all cases they have had paid work for most if not all of their working lives, sometimes, but not always, bringing up children as well.  As Coops says, a true partnership.

I have worked all my life, have a full state pension in my own right, and there have been times when my husband has been my dependent because he was not working, as I was his, in the times I was between jobs.  Again - another true partnership. 

About the time I started work, I would agree, your scenario was very common, but since the 70's the majority of women have been involved in paid and very often highly professional work. Those of us now coming up to retirement have paid a full (and sometimes very full) role in contributing financially to any partnership.

[AnOther]

There seems to have been an unfortunate and unintended blurring of the

definition of' 'dependent' which on the one hand can be taken

completely literally, in a financial sense as has been my meaning throughout, and

on the other the more philosophical definition within a marriage or

partnership which is a wholly different animal.

My good lady has worked most of her life will qualify for a full state pension when she reached the appropriate age but as of our move to France she has ceased paid employment whilst I work on so, savings apart, is unquestionably financially dependent on me yet, come the day she begins to draw her £95/wk state pension, or whatever it happens to be by then, and in consequence receives her E121, then, despite the fact that I will quite likely still be working and earning several times that, I will suddenly qualify as her financial dependent, that is what I am questioning the logic of - nothing more - and I'm sorry if you ladies have read something else into my comments [:(]

[Gardian]

Hmmm.

Can't help thinking "When you're in a hole, stop digging".[:'(]

[Judith]

But surely "dependency" in terms of  the E121 is nothing to do with financial dependence, but rather the way the French are much more into families, and that one qualifier in a family qualifies the rest of the family.  I'm not explaining it very well, as it is a concept not in particular use in the UK, but if you happen to be linked to someone "permanently" usually by marriage but also with a PACS, you then get those rights because you are connected permanently.  Maybe someone will come along and tell me I talking rubbish, but rather than continuing to dig myself into Gardian's hole - I'm stopping now!

[AnOther]

I agree [;-)]

[Tony F Dordogne]

Still on the theme of E121 just want to clarify something from people who have actually been in this situation ..........

J has the opportunity to do some work and she's contemplating doing so but it can be done in the UK or in France.  If she does the work in France does that comprimise her E121?She reached the magic number a couple of years ago and has her retirement E121 but does the fact that she would pay cotizations in France make France her competant state rather than the UK?

 

[Will]

No - you can be a French resident with an E121 from another country and carry out work in France (but not with an E106, unless it is a 'workers' E106). The fact that you are retired does not absolve you from having to pay the full cotisations on your earnings. If it is not a great amount of work, and the work is in a suitable field, then the autoentrepreneur scheme would be highly suitable as it is intended primarily for people who are already in the system through employment, retirement, studying etc and wish to legally earn some extra money.

 

[cooperlola]

My point I guess is that "dependence" is not necessarily overtly finacial.  In fact an unpaid wife does make a financial contribution, inasmuch as if she weren't there, then the working husband would have to pay for somebody to care for his children and his home and to cook his meals etc while he worked to pay for it. 

If one person reaches the age at which they are entitled to be paid by the UK for their healthcare abroad, then it should not be up to any bureaucrat to determine which member of a marital or common-law partnership was the major breadwinner.  Where does that leave gay couples?  A partnership is a partnership and that's the way Europe sees it.  Whichever partner gets his or her entitlement first, can classify the other as their dependent.  Happily it's not up to some individual in a suit to make this judgement as evidently the old prejudices and assumptions are still alive and well and living in our continent.