Jump to content

What do they mean by 'income'?


thunderhorse
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello,

I think some of you are missing a fundamental point. The CMU legislation, whilst well meaning, is daft.. As far as abuse by the apparently wealthy is concerned (in fact in many cases they are simply obeying the daft law) it is going off at a tangent.

Not only is it stupid, it is certainly against the spirit of EU law to make full private health insurance illegal. So why not simply repeal,, or at least modify, the law? After all it would be a measure to relieve the burden on the state. Very simple. If a government can restrict the freedom of an individual in their choice of healthcare provision, and under pain of fines and imprisonment if they do not comply, they are not going to give up this option. even for the sake of millions of Euros.

Regards

Owen

[email protected]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Owen"]Hello,

I think some of you are missing a fundamental point. The CMU legislation, whilst well meaning, is daft.. As far as abuse by the apparently wealthy is concerned (in fact in many cases they are simply obeying the daft law) it is going off at a tangent.

Not only is it stupid, it is certainly against the spirit of EU law to make full private health insurance illegal. So why not simply repeal,, or at least modify, the law? After all it would be a measure to relieve the burden on the state. Very simple. If a government can restrict the freedom of an individual in their choice of healthcare provision, and under pain of fines and imprisonment if they do not comply, they are not going to give up this option. even for the sake of millions of Euros.

Regards

Owen

[email protected][/quote]

Hi Owen,

What would "full private health insurance" mean in the French context?  Where would they get their care?  Who would calculate the rate?  And who would benefit?  The poor?  The just above CMU?  The people at 1500-2000 euros a month?  Or the easy class?  Why would anyone want to tamper that much with what your web site claims as the best health service in the world (not counting the complex bureaucracy)?  And you must be careful about advertising your private company by putting your website on the post, people have been reprimanded for advertising for their business.  Yours being private health care I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 >>And you must be careful about advertising your private company by putting your website on the post, people have been reprimanded for advertising for their business.  Yours being private health care I suppose.<<

TreizeVents, Owen has every right to use his link as a signature just as some gite owners or B&B owners use links to their sites as their sigs.

Here is a link which may help: http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/766304/ShowPost.aspx

Not only that but he happens to be an excellent source of information. !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the thing that is really stupid about the CMU is that unlike most UK benefits it takes no account of capital assets as opposed to income.

There may be good political reasons for applying this to French nationals, but it has had the unfortunate effect of benefiting people for whom the free CMU was never intended.

As I have already said on the other thread, the French are going to use the 2004 modification of EU law that permits the control of EU nationals living in an EU country other than their own, by instituting residence permits. That will close the CMU, Child Benefit, and RMI loopholes once and for all. How? Well to get a permit you have to have sufficient resource to disqualify you from claiming benefits.

As far as private health insurance is concerned I cannot see any possible advantage in allowing Private Health Insurance UK style. There would be relatively few people who could afford to pay contributions to the state scheme and then repeat the coverage in a private scheme, that would of necessity call upon the same hospitals in the state scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Treizevents,

My business is not private healthcare.

You are equating the participation of commercial health insurers necessarily with a two tier health system perhaps drawing on the experience in the UK when those who can afford BUPA cover for example can skip waiting lists. In fact private healthcare is all around you in France. There are public hospitals and private clinics to which there is general access for most of the population. Most private clinics in France are still "conventioné" and the two tier system that exists in the UK does not really occur here. The issue is not private or public care but how it can be better funded. Private insurance I would suggest has a greater part to play in funding health in France. It does already, of course in that the two largest providers of "top up" insurance in France are AXA and Groupama. A law that can put somebody in the slammer for 2 years, for having full private insurance instead of affiliating to the "Sécu", and therefore cuts off a potential source of funds for health, is as daft as the CMU law which complements this draconian legislation.

And on the subject of free "top ups"; the CPAM can and do use other criteria apart from declared income to assess entitlement so it is not quite the free lunch people think.

Regards

Owen

[email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the system is set up in France aligns with the fundamental  concepts of Fraternite and Equalite , everyone sharing to support one another. It just means that there has to be a bit of restraint on the Liberte to achieve it.

I assume that the people were imprisoned not for having private insurance, but for non payment of social dues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello BSJLIV,

I am not a lawyer but I do not think the assumption you make is correct. People, who could afford private insurance from their capital but would not otherwise have to pay contributions because of actual low declared income, would still fall foul of this law. Simply opting for private insurance in itself would appear to be an offence.

There is probably bags of "égalité" and "fraternité" among the starving of North Korea but it aint much good "sans liberté".

Regards

Owen

[email protected]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am slightly offended, but not surprised, that Owen seems to think that Liberte means, or used to mean, or should mean that someone should be able to buy whatever product they want if they have the money.  Even in this day of commodification of nearly everything and a (false) "free market" mentality driving the world into disaster, there are still restrictions on what you can buy and sell in civilised countries.  And thank goodness for it.  In my mind, and to my understanding, there is not a lot of equality, nor fraternity nor liberty in North Korea.  It is an elitist dictatorship where a few rich people control the rest by means of military force and political power.  It has nothing to do with liberty, equality or fraternity.  Its a place run by thugs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Kathy C,

There are various reasons why private insurance would be a preferential option for some people. For example, such a policy may not just cover health costs in France but Europe-wide or worldwide as well.

But because of how healthcare is administered in France, a private policy holder would not have access to superior healthcare to those covered by the "Sécu" eg; access to specialists etc And it is not as if someone with full private insurance therefore does not contribute. The biggest single source of funding of the CPAM is CSG which is levied on most sources of income.

For those like Treizewinds and BSJLIV, who would appear to agree with this absurd legislation; get this: under a little known faciility - "Aide Médicale d"Etat (AME) an ILLEGAL immigrant can obtain healthcare in France funded by the state. Now I am not suggesting that anyone should be left to die in the street. But neither do I think that someone who has private insurance, and would not be a drain on the health budget, be put in the slammer.

Regards

Owen

[email protected]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Owen"]Hello Kathy C, There are various reasons why private insurance would be a preferential option for some people. For example, such a policy may not just cover health costs in France but Europe-wide or worldwide as well. [/quote]

Yes but what would be the " various reasons", apart from health cover outside France? I really want to know the answer. If I were living in France and private health insurance was legal, and I wasn't a world-wide traveller, what would I get for my money? What would make private insurance a "preferential option" for me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Owen,

You seem to find it absurd or that an illegal immigrant would be taken care of by the state, if they fell ill.  That is, taken care of by my tax money which funds the state care.  I find that entirely reasonable.  You find it absurd.   Alors? 

What then would you do with this illegal immigrant, of some age and gender and family situation, who became ill?  Or maybe got run over by a car.  Or fell a few floors in his illegal construction work.  Send them back to somewhere immediately while they were ill or injured?  What would you do?  Rememberig of course that in the press illegal and legal are simple terms, but in reality the apply to complex cases and actual people.  According to you, the "absurd" French system would look after them.

Is this your biggest and most important criticism of the "absurdity" of French health policy?  Doesn't seem that big a deal to me.  In fact, I would rather turn my attention to the other side of the chain and figure out how the big drug manufacturers can be dealt with more effectively in our interests, instead of turning huge profits for not much work on problems that make loads of money and almost no work on problems that might not be profitable.

I noticed that you have not yet really responded to any of my original quetions, some of which were for simple information.  Stuff I simply don't know and thought you might know about, given your business.  And some of which were because I disagree with you, and want to find out what you think except for "absurd". You can answer either kind.  I get very upset during arguments, so maybe just answer the ones that are for simple information.

What would "full private health insurance" mean in the French context? I actually don't know what it means.

Where would they get their care?  In the same facilities?  And why would they not want the French "national" insurance?

Who would calculate the rate?  And on what basis?  I actually don't know the answer.

And

who would benefit from "full private health insurance"? 

The poor? 

The just above CMU level entitlement? 

The people at

1500-2000 euros a month? 

Or the easy class? 

Why would anyone want to

tamper that much with what your corporate web site claims is the best health

service in the world (not counting the complex bureaucracy)?

All the best,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Treizewinds,

I have never said the French health system is absurd but that the CMU legislation is. I think the genuinely poor should be able to obtain state healthcare even if that poor person is an illegal immigrant. I cannot be any clearer on this point

For those who are living but not working in France I have no problems in them having the right to subscribe and pay into a state system - I just do not think they should be forced to. And if they prefer to make healthcare provision by private health insurance they should not be fined or imprisoned.

Your questions:

"What would "full private health insurance" mean in the French context? I actually don't know what it means".

That instead of paying contributions under CMU legislation they can pay premiums to an insurer such as BUPA.

"Where would they get their care?"

In established French medical facilities.

"" In the same facilities?

Not necessarily (see below).

" And why would they not want the French "national" insurance?"

i have already mentioned in a previous post that some want Europe/worldwide coverage which CMU does not offer. Another reason, relevant to expats, is that in the case of some medical treatment they may wish to have it in their home country; not to have access to elite treatment but to be near their family.

"Who would calculate the rate? And on what basis? I actually don't know the answer.

As now premiums being set by the insurer depending on the level of cover required".

"

And who would benefit from "full private health insurance"?" 

I have mentioned who may benefit above.

"The poor? 

The just above CMU level entitlement? 

The people at 1500-2000 euros a month?"

These people, and any other resident for that matter not paying contributions via legal employment/self-employment, should continue to have the right but not the legal obligation, to affiliate to the state system

"Or the easy class?" 

Don't understand this.

"Why would anyone want to tamper that much with what your corporate web site claims is the best health service in the world (not counting the complex bureaucracy)?"

Tampering is not the issue. The quality of healthcare in France is high but if these standards are to be maintained then serious reform is necessary. Indeed such reforms have been introduced over recent years. A poster on this thread has already mentioned the social security deficit. The health budget deficit has been in deficit for some years. For 2006 it is expected to turn out around the 6 billion Euros level.

Regards

Owen

[email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I arrived in France I was on what was considered here to be a low income.  I rented out my house in the UK, and lived quite comfortably on the rent it earned.  I have to add that I lived very simply as well, as I did not run a car, owned both my UK house and my home here outright and so had no mortgage to cover, didn't take expensive holidays, had no renovations to do and had no young children to support.  Although my income might have been classed as below average, my outgoings were far less than those of many French people, so I could well have been considered to be very comfortably off.  I certainly didn't need to work to support myself.

I would have had absolutely no qualms about paying for my healthcare here in France, but as the system stood, and still stands at the moment, I simply didn't have the choice.  I had to enter into the French health system as a legal requirement, and they had to make the same allowances for me, due to my low income, as for any French national with the same level of income.  Even after I sold my house in the UK, when my income actually dropped slightly but my capital level rose significantly, I still had the same healthcare entitlements.

The system is flawed, even those that can afford, and indeed would want to pay for or contribute towards their healthcare here are prevented from doing so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owen

So, unless someone living in France wanted the option of being treated in another country (either because of travel or personal inclination) there would be no purpose in having private insurance? Given the availability of travel insurance it strikes me that very few people would be interested in this. Unless there's a hidden agenda, which I rather suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cat, you are so right. When I first moved here, I wanted to take out private health insurance because I felt I had not contributed to the French system, knew about the dire straits of it’s finances and couldn’t be bothered to sort out the E forms as, initially, I was only here for 9 months.

Since moving here full time, I’ve rarely used the Health system but feel less guilty these days. However, back then, I would happily have paid.

In fact, that’s what happened the first time I saw a specialist. I called a private clinic and got an appointment the following day. On arrival, I realised they thought that I had a Carte Vitale and explained to them that I would pay for the tests. I was treated as a private patient without private insurance alongside the state patients. I simply wrote them a cheque. It also showed that I would not have received preferential treatment as a patient with full private insurance.

The French health service works well because of the private/state partnership rejected in the UK. I really don’t understand anyone being jailed for having a private policy in view of how the health service works here (top up insurance system). There has to be more to this jail term as another poster suggests.

A two-tier system will only occur in France if private hospitals are built to ‘’only’’ treat private patients and that would be wrong. If I had the means, I would definitely be happy to pay for my own treatment here, cotisations or not. Being prevented from doing so doesn’t make any sense to me.

In some areas, the private/state partnership here is already on shaky grounds as one often see articles about certain clinics and dentists not accepting patients without top-up insurance. Clearly these clinics are not happy about the amount and how they are reimbursed by the State. This is a worry because the CMU is not an option for most people entitled to it.

TV; the only answer I can give for tampering with the French health service is it’s terrible terrible financial state. I think that most Brits in their late 30s and older probably remember a good NHS too. The French system is good for the most part but it is a bottomless pit too and realism has to come to play sooner rather than later for all our sakes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, reading through this I felt as though I had pulled at fast one and had something I shouldn't have had.

But when my E106 expired that ( CMU) was all that was offered to me so I assumed it was what everyone else had and we do have to pay, so I am at a loss to see what the problem is.[8-)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too, Beryl...  I think (?) this discussion is about people who do not pay into the French system because they have an income lower than the required amount and are therefore entitled to free benifits, even though they have large amounts of capital in the form of property etc; or those who do not pay as they have private healthcare (BUPA) etc in the UK and return there for major care and use travel insurance or whatever for the rest.  But I could be wrong, it's drifted a bit....[:-))]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...