"French Health Issues" Website Launch

[Cat]

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

However, it is clear from his posts that he has totally misunderstood the facts of the situation, so he has been directing his comments at the wrong people...[8-)]

 

[/quote]

Quite right SD, ignorance can be forgiven.

[Tarn1]

I personally, have found it extremely useful.  People have put in a huge amount of work for which they should be both congratulated and thanked. To say it 'can't be taken seriously' when many people are in a very serious position is, in my opinion, at best unhelpful and at worst an attempt at sabotage.

Constructive feedback and corrections to inaccuracies, OK.

Sweeping negative statements aimed at undermining sincere efforts to help others, No.

If you don't like it just leave it alone.

Tom

[makfai]

[quote user="Tarn1"]I personally, have found it extremely useful.  People have put in a huge amount of work for which they should be both congratulated and thanked. To say it 'can't be taken seriously' when many people are in a very serious position is, in my opinion, at best unhelpful and at worst an attempt at sabotage.
Constructive feedback and corrections to inaccuracies, OK.
Sweeping negative statements aimed at undermining sincere efforts to help others, No.
If you don't like it just leave it alone.
Tom
[/quote]

 

Or contribute to it by emailing FHI your suggested amendments

[groslard]

[quote user="powerdesal"][quote user="groslard"][quote user="makfai"]

Which bits on the FHI site are wrong?

 

By the way...UK is not just a residence criterion as you will see from the FHI site.

[/quote]

a simple example: "Until 1st October 2007, UK nationals wishing to become

resident in France were obliged, under French law, to affiliate, and where

appropriate, contribute to the CMU.  Comprehensive health insurance was not

even an option. "

Absolutely not true!

I paid Private Health Insurance from 1995 to 1998, when I qualified for the Sécu (NOT the CMU) by cotisations..

And I have never been affiliated to the CMU.

[/quote]

Are you saying that private health insurance was an allowable option after the 2000 ruling?

My understanding is that early retired immigrants from UK had, BY LAW, to be affiliated to the CMU and that PHI was not allowed. Am I wrong?

A simple yes or no to each quesion will suffice.

[/quote]

No they could work, or run a business.

the only had to join the CMU if they  didn't want to do that, so it was a choice to remain idle.

Remember these are people under retiremernt age by definition.

 

and that PHI was not allowed.

True

[Sunday Driver]

So, from your original insistence that the FHI statement "Comprehensive health insurance was not even an option" was Absolutely not true! (your emphasis), you now are forced to admit that you were wrong and that PHI was, in fact, not allowed.  The considered and careful research carried out by FHI ahead of their published statement was clearly more reliable than your contribution.

Yet another failed attempt at making apparently informed comment on this subject  - your credibility must be now virtually non-existent.....[8-)]

 

 

[makfai]

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

So, from your original insistence that the FHI statement "Comprehensive health insurance was not even an option" was Absolutely not true! (your emphasis), you now are forced to admit that you were wrong and that PHI was, in fact, not allowed.  The considered and careful research carried out by FHI ahead of their published statement was clearly more reliable than your contribution.

Yet another failed attempt at making apparently informed comment on this subject  - your credibility must be now virtually non-existent.....[8-)]

[/quote]

 

Well said.  If there was anything constructive this person had to add I would have thought we would have seen it by now.

[groslard]

To say

"Until 1st October 2007, .  Comprehensive health insurance was not

even an option. "

is not true

The correct version would be that "for the limited period between 2000 and 2007  UK nationals wishing to become

resident in France were obliged, under French law, to affiliate, and where

appropriate, contribute to the CMU.

For those resident before 2000, Private Health Insurance was an option which was temporarily withdrawn, and will become an option again."

[powerdesal]

[quote user="groslard"][quote user="powerdesal"][quote user="groslard"][quote user="makfai"]

Which bits on the FHI site are wrong?

 

By the way...UK is not just a residence criterion as you will see from the FHI site.

[/quote]

a simple example: "Until 1st October 2007, UK nationals wishing to become

resident in France were obliged, under French law, to affiliate, and where

appropriate, contribute to the CMU.  Comprehensive health insurance was not

even an option. "

Absolutely not true!

I paid Private Health Insurance from 1995 to 1998, when I qualified for the Sécu (NOT the CMU) by cotisations..

And I have never been affiliated to the CMU.

[/quote]

Are you saying that private health insurance was an allowable option after the 2000 ruling?

My understanding is that early retired immigrants from UK had, BY LAW, to be affiliated to the CMU and that PHI was not allowed. Am I wrong?

A simple yes or no to each quesion will suffice.

[/quote]

No they could work, or run a business.

the only had to join the CMU if they  didn't want to do that, so it was a choice to remain idle.

Remember these are people under retiremernt age by definition.

 

and that PHI was not allowed.

True

[/quote]

To say

"Until 1st October 2007, .  Comprehensive health insurance was not

even an option. "

is not true

The correct version would be that "for the limited period between 2000 and 2007  UK nationals wishing to become

resident in France were obliged, under French law, to affiliate, and where

appropriate, contribute to the CMU.

For

those resident before 2000, Private Health Insurance was an option

which was temporarily withdrawn, and will become an option again."

Groslard, your latest statement (in blue) above is pedantic to say the least.

"they could work or run a business"........It is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of ex-UK early retirees were aged 50+,

are there / were there many job opportunities for this age group? Comments on this forum (and others) would suggest that the 50+ age group have zero chance of finding work. If they did would they not be taking away a job opportunity from a jobless French national?, would this be right, especially given the assumption that the retiree did not financially need the job?

"run a business"....agreed, but again many comments have been made that starting a business in France is not exactly the easiest thing in the world. It also assumes that retirees are all potential business people. Not all people are capable of starting / running a successful business, nor do all people have a business idea which will work.

The fact that any retiree immigating to France from UK was BY LAW required to affiliate to CMU at whatever cost the French Govt set is an uncontestable truth. It was never ever stated to be a "temporary" obligation, it was the stated law. There was never any intimation that the law would change - why would there be?

Perhaps a student of the French system "may" have considered that the system would have to be changed at some time in the future but without the necessary highly accurate chrystal ball I defy anyone (including you) to do accurate predictions. Can you predict what rules will be changed next year, or the year after etc.?

My personal view of your comments across the whole thread are that you are, to some degree, envious of the treatment accorded to the UK early retirees, possibly envious of the fact that those people were in a financial position to retire early, envious of the fact that a number of those people bought large houses for cash etc. In short, you have allowed personal envy to colour and cloud logical argument.(IMHO)

nb. the H does not mean "humble"

[AnOther]

Sorry to resurrect this thread but sadly I note that the site has now disappeared and that the domain name is for sale.

Coops was this a deliberate move I wonder or an unfortunate oversight with all your other problems ?

If the latter I'm sure there are many who will support you if there is a way to resurrect it.

[idun]

AnOther, Coops announced it's closure some time ago.

I cannot get the search feature to 'find' it to show you.

[cooperlola]

Voila:

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/2635363/ShowPost.aspx

If things ever get back to normal this end I hope to do something about this but for the moment it's on the back burner.  Sorry and all that.

[AnOther]

Apologies, either missed it or it's another example of my feeble powers of recall letting me down again !

Still a bit surprised to see the domain name let go, they cost very little.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="AnOther"]Still a bit surprised to see the domain name let go, they cost very little.

[/quote]Obviously,  I was not clear enough in my first post.  The  IT guy has left us, I cannot contact him, thus I do not even know how I would start to do any of this, even if I could afford the time and costs involved.  When I'm fitter and have time to devote to such things, then I may revive some of the better info' using the tips above, edit it etc and set the stuff up again but at the mo' that is just not on, no matter how much I'd like to!

Whilst it would be great just to get it up and running, even if I could and even with the kind help offered by you and others, it still would need a consensus of several people (probably including some of the other founders if I could get hold of any of them and persuade them to give up their time) to verify and update the material on the site. since the regulations and the way they are being implemented (see, for insance, Keni's recent experiences posted on a new year thread) have changed somewhat since the site was last updated.

[AnOther]

Obviously I could not know how the oganisation was set up Coops or who owned the domain name although I would have assumed it to be a colleague or at least supporter of the cause.

Unfortunately whoever own's it now is cybersquatting and hoping to get a 3 figure sum for it.

http://www.sedo.com/search/details.php4?language=us&domain=frenchhealthissues.eu&partnerid=17505

I know this because I offered €20 and got an instant message that the bid was too low and that 3 figures was a typical price, dream on buddy !

If you do ever get around to resurrecting it then it will have to be under a slightly different name but  frenchealthissues  is available under several different top level suffixes, and for very little money too, so that should not be a problem.

[cooperlola]

Mr IT paid for the domain name, just as others of us paid for things like postage stamps and printing etc.  We never made the thing very formal as that would have involved all sorts of complicated financial and legal issues which none of us wanted to get involved in.  We were simply a group of people with a single goal which, once achieved, pretty much meant the end of us.  As far as I know, only two of the other founders actually still live in France and they don't post on here any more, nor on that other forum!  Another posts on here but was only involved on the fringes.  All the others bar one (and they are on their way) are now UK based.  The IT guy has never kept in touch and I don't know where he lives.  In fact, he designed a website for somebody else and they've had the same problem with their domain name too.

Thus FHI is just me.  If I did pay for this, then I would become FHI which I'm not prepared to do - there is too much risk involved for too little reward in terms of the use it would be.  The best thing, imho, would be to re-write the contents and offer it via this forum, as R/H suggested on the other thread.  When I have the time, I propose to kick this off, but it would need to be properly edited and re-written, and I couldn't do this alone, plus I don't think it would be sensible to do it under the FHI banner, for the reasons stated above.