Sarkozy's Tactical Reversal Re: Health Care? Please comment

[Pixie Toadstool]

I can't find any mention or discussion re: this article in the Sunday Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/02/21/cmfrance21.xml

What do all you peeps think?

Pix

[AnOther]

I think you've got some reading to catch up on [;-)]

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=1347&PageIndex=1

 

[Pixie Toadstool]

Oh so just the normal media reporting "news" which isn't news at all!?  I see it all the time in the area I know - pharmaceuticals/medical research yet I am taken in by it all again!  I didn't read the full article at first as my husband said it was all very exciting - I see now it's not news and not so very exciting except for those already there and stuck in a muddle!

Pix

[AnOther]

Don't worry PT, I think others missed it too because it was a sub forum.

Your article did have something of interest though because I for one hadn't heard of the "Moratorium policies" mentioned [;-)]  

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="Pixie Toadstool"]Oh so just the normal media reporting "news" which isn't news at all!? ............ I see now it's not news and not so very exciting except for those already there and stuck in a muddle!

Pix
[/quote]

Well nobody who was here before the 27 November is now stuck in a muddle now, so that is news to many, those  not directly affected and some who were, who only read UK papers.

However, what is news to me and many others I suspect is that the about turn was down to The Telegraph[:-))]  and not the efforts of the Europe Minister, FHI and Mary Honeyball MEP, the former two not even mentioned..

"The volte-face comes after the Telegraph highlighted the plight of Vanessa Brown",

I must write a letter of congratulations to the Editor of the Torygraph, the arrogant ****[:@]

[Will]

The article does still show a worrying lack of knowledge of the subject. Depite being told otherwise on many occasions, the Telegraph continues with its statements that the French health system is free. Standard reimbursement levels at 70% of consultation fees and 65% (down to 35% for some) for medicines is not free. And the people who cancelled their private health assurance when going to France under E-forms did not make an unfortunate but understandable error, as the article implied; they did what they were compelled to do by the system in force at the time.

Does the 'moratorium' policy actually meet the specification for French private assurance? It would appear not, and in view of the above errors I would take with the proverbial pinch of salt the article's assertion that it will suffice, at least until some other confirmation is received. Particularly as the sums quoted seem quite close to what many people pay for top-ups.

 

[Pixie Toadstool]

"Well nobody who was here before the 27 November is

now stuck in a muddle now, so that is news to many, those  not directly

affected and some who were, who only read UK papers."

(Sorry - I don't know how to do the quote thing for just a bit of a post)

Ron I hope you don't think I am poo-pooing the difference it will make for people already in France - of course I am extremely pleased for them as I know that some have been facing some very serious problems in this respect. 

However, I was led to believe by my husband (who doesn't read France Forum) that when we move to France in 2 years time we would be included in this retroactive decision and of course we won't be - so we must ensure we have adequate provision for our retirement (I will be only 52 and my husband will be 60).  It would have been better for us if Sarko had decided to go back on his original decision, to include us in the system as things were a year or so ago (which is what my husband had wrongly inferred from the article).

And yes - I agree about The Torygraph - you certainly can't believe everything you read there.  With respect to an area I DO know something about they often report for shock value and interestingly leave out some very significant details - it gets on my nerves but can anyone suggest a more trustworthy paper?  I think they are all very much the same - news for shock value not for information.

Pix

[AnOther]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

I must write a letter of congratulations to the Editor of the Torygraph, the arrogant ****[:@]

[/quote]If you do go ahead with this I'm sure there are many here who would be only too happy to countersign it, count me in for one !

[Catalpa]

That article (enormous part that the Telewag played in Sarko's change of mind aside [:P]) did seem tolerably accurate. I know, as Will said, it didn't go into the detail of 70% and top-ups but who was it written for? People who do know the details so they actually don't need them? [8-)] Or for those who might be mildly interested but who don't want / need the details, just an overview? Or for those who do need the details so will take the article as a suggestion to do further research. Like wot Pixie has done. I think the article met the needs of the last two groups.

Most subjects are far more complex than brief articles ever indicate but journalists probably try and judge how much to put in vs an amount of detail that will have a majority of readers not bothering after the first paragraph.

[AnOther]

Good point Catalpa.

Being offshore we receive a regular raft (no pun intended) of daily papers which run the full gamut from the worst of the gutter press to the supposed "quality" publications such as the Time, Guardian and Independant and although the former are not generally included in my choice of reading material I do occasionally scan through them and it's worrying how often the same story can come across in almost the exact opposite.

The only way to get the near truth it seems is to read them all and form one's own balanced opinion - then believe 1/2 of it [:-))]

I don't recall who it was said "life and I have nothing in common" but the press seem to have adopted the principal edited to "the truth and the press............"