Why has Living France published this?

[JJ]

Below is a link to an article by Bill Blevins for the latest edition of Living France magazine.

Come on Living France get your act together, it is well out of date, there is no mention of the ruling on 14/12/07

http://www.livingfrance.com/expert-advice-healthcare-expert-financial-advice-latest-health-care-ruling--14082

[cooperlola]

The problems of a monthly publication, I guess.  But no reason why the web version shouldn't be updated.  James, have you any influence over there?

[Sunday Driver]

"Previously, early retirees who were not working in France could pay into the CMU (Couverture Maladie Universelle) and receive ‘free’ state health treatment."

Cue steam coming from Cooperlola's ears......[:-))]

 

[cooperlola]

The sentence is oxymoronic isn't it?  You pay to get something for nothing. Doh.

[sunshine 2]

Bill Blevins should get his information right before writing things that upset many people who are already v upset about the heathcare issue.  You will see that in the fourth parag from the end , he says that if Brits resident in France decide to move back to UK then they need to be resident in UK for 6 months before being able to access the NHS.  This caused someone who is already distraught about the health situation, and intends moving back to UK as soon as she can wind up her affairs and sell house etc, to write to FHI.  I have therefore corresponded with the editor of Livng France and she has promised to take this mis-information up with Bill Blevins and to put an apology in the next issue of LF.  I pointed out to her that we have on the FHI site, copies of 2 official emails stating that NHS cover is immediate on return to UK, as long as the intention is to be a permanent resident - plus I have today sent her a further copy of a letter from Dawn Primarolo which confirms the same thing.  Not sure I would want to ask Bill Blevins for financial advice if he gets things like this, of fundamental importance to many, wrong.

[Owen]

Hello,

For what it is worth I have sent a mail to LF too. The information about the thresholds is inaccurate too. And Blevins Franks has no excuse. I read the Fourth Edition of their book "Living in France" and pointed out this very same error about thresholds.

I am sure Blevins Franks will claim they are not healthcare experts but finance professionals. That's all right then!

Regards

Owen

[email protected]

[Deimos]

In fairness he does explain that many have been required to contribute to the CMU (and provide details) and he did put the free in quote marks.  I can appreciate that this is not 100% accurate and that maybe he should have gone on to clarify about 60%, 70%, etc., what gets what amount of refund, and that sometimes you can get your doctor to recommend 100% to CPAM who might accept this on a case by case basis and that some major illnesses are automatically covered to 100% - have I lost you with my limited (probably inaccurate) clarification which should probably also then go on to explain about paying for top-ups and why people often take out more than 100% top-ups, etc., etc.

Whilst it may not be 100% accurate and might not be completely up-to-date, magazine space is limited and not every details of every aspect can be fully described in a brief review - and if it is it gets so tiresome that nobody would plough through it anyway.

True there are errors.  For example, he says that if you get an E121 you can be covered under the CMU for free.  We all know this is not the case, it is covered by CPAM for free that is the real truth - but that minor error makes no substantial difference for many people.  You can probably pick holes in anything written by most people.  But he is drawing people's attention to the changes, making them more aware of issues and problems they might face, etc.

There are "other sites" who are publishing information and you can "pick holes" in what they have written as well.  Not major things so not a big deal and not worth raising.  For example, one site says "However, if you have been resident for 5 years or more, you will be able to remain in the CMU.".  One could get picky and say that the new rules also allow you to JOIN the CMU once you reach 5 years residency - but in the same way as the LF article it would be just being excessively picky and non constructive.

Ian

[Owen]

Hello Ian,

You have made a gallant attempt to defend a sloppy article. I too am not bothered about such things as ......." E121 you can be covered under the CMU for free". ...........

For the last 4 months I have been working, mainly in the background, to try and bring about some natural justice in this matter. The one area where I have wasted my time is the UK media. I never initiated any correspondence with the press but I did try try and give an informed opinion when I was contacted. They just did not want to know whether it was the print media or the BBC. Almost to a man and woman they were anti the expat in France. Take the Jeremy Vine show fiasco. I was contacted at the end of September by the producer and I agreed to be appear on the show on October 9th. It was an editorial decision to omit the item at the last minute. It did appear on the show on 15 November but I was not invited to appear. I am not miffed about that in itself but the so called expert who did comment was a UK GP and her main criticism was a lack of receptionists at "cabinets". Good grief!

One can understand bias from the Rupert Murdoch press whose article, fed by a health insurer, started this all off by implying thousands of us were receiving free healthcare. I can even understand the so called impartial BBC distorting the facts. But we should expect better when an apparent expert on French healthcare pens a sloppy article in a specialist magazine such as Living France.

Regards

Owen

[email protected]

[cooperlola]

Then, Owen, you should be pleased to see THIS

The reporter himself was extremely miffed when his previous attempt at this article was butchered by the "subs" back in the UK, and the eventual result was full of inaccuracies which were not in his original piece.  He restored the balance today, as I hope you agree.

[Owen]

Hello Coops,

This is certainly a well balanced measured article. The problem is that it is 3 months too late and 6 weeks after the circular was signed. But perhaps I am being too hard on the scribblers of the national press in view of the sloppy article in LF.

Regards

Owen

[email protected]

[cooperlola]

We are stuck with the media we have.  Having had a career long battle with them, it's easy to become frustrated. Having been "quoted" on numerous occasions, I now don't believe a single word I read or hear anywhere without properly checking out the sources first!

Sadly, our politicians care greatly about what the press says about them, so on occasions, one has to deal with them, knowing full well how the facts may well be twisted for the sake of a good story.  But heads and brick walls certainly spring to mind on a regular basis.

[Richardk]

In my (personal) experience, Blevins Franks have also illustrated themselves to be out of date on financial matters too, an area where they position themselves as experts. Certainly I would never use them again.

[AnOther]

"left Aberdeenshire to live in the Deux-Sevres (grave first e)"

From a professional reporter living in Paris, I ask you [blink]

[:D]