Follow-up to E106 : A worrying development

[Will]

Thanks for the comments. My problem with this whole thing is that it is just such an almighty c***up from beginning to (most probably) end by the French government and officials. It's a situation that should never have arisen, and only did because all French residents were forced to join the health system. The (understandable) attempts to plug what is perceived by the French as a leak of precious resources have just made things even worse, but an amazing number of British affected by this (and I mean primarily those who do not use this forum) see themselves as hard done by, not by the French government which has made the changes, but rather as a personal attack on them by Gordon Brown, and because they don't experience waiting lists and can get virtually any drugs or treatment they want, they cannot believe that the French health system has its own funding crisis. None of the French officials appears to know any answers - they have not formally received any official verdict so they either admit they don't know or make up their own rules, which just adds to the existing confusion. Yes, people came to live in France in good faith and find themselves sh*t upon - that's a good example of how in trying to sort something out, all that has been achieved is bad feeling and near-chaos.

[cooperlola]

I agree Will.  A little more advanced planning and debate, and some more carefully thought out and timely announcements would have made the thing relatively smooth.  What has been left as a result of the  mess are an estimated (from the UK - the other countries I know less about) 7.5k E106 holders who are already here who are the only ones affected now, apart from those yet to arrive.  One can still make arguments about the latter group in the future but - apart from the unfortunates who are caught "mid-move" they at the very least have the opportunity to make an informed choice now (or they would if the amelie website didn't still say that inactifs could still join CMU after 3 months' stable residence!!!) before spening money getting here and making other commitments to France.

I believe (and this is my perception only) that because it is a somewhat quirky interpretion of EU law which is being used, that the reason for this is that it did not produce the normal parliamentary and political debate which would have happened naturally if it had been an internal legal process and parliamentary decision, of France's own making.  Then, I suspect, the implications of what was being done would have been hammered out more fully and the case of the poor people left with no health care options at all would have been considered long ago.  As it is, they are left in the lurch because I don't believe anybody realised the implications - not least because I still don't think that the health department truly appreciates just how many exclusions the private healthcare industry puts on comprehensive policies.  Largely because the industry here is just not geared up.

You are right, what makes me so angry is not so much the principal behind this (although I don't agree with it - but that's another debate altogether) but the very poor way in which it was handled in the first place, and is still being handled.  Even rules which have been agreed are not being implemented.  If it were just about how to register your car, or how much income tax you owed, it would be one thing.  But when it's about whether you will or will not be legally allowed to live here and get life-saving treatment should you need it, then a c*ck up (as you so rightly describe it) like this is unforgiveable.

[groslard]

[quote user="Will"]. It's a situation that should never have arisen, and only did because all French residents were forced to join the health system. [/quote]

But nothing changed for a lot of people: those already on a E121, British people working here or running a business were already in the system.

It is only those who have taken early retirement who are concerned.

As I said before, and I haven't seen anybody refute:

The CMU is not the French Health system. That is the Assurance Maladie,

and there are several ways into it (working, running a business,

Agriculture, being a performing artist etc)

The CMU is one recent (since 2000) way in to the system. It is

NOT the system.

It was brought in in 2000 as a route into the Assurance Maladie, and this is now being closed.

The French government is not preventing access to the Assurance Maladie

for British people

The French government is closing off one access route

to the system,  the CMU de base, but the others remain open

[groslard]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

the poor people left with no health care options at all would have been considered long ago. 

[/quote]

Any British person can go back to the UK and get health care on the NHS.

It might involve a lot of other difficult decisions, like selling up in France, having to live with relatives or in rented  accommodation etc but I do not see how this is "no health care options at all "

It is a question of making a hard choice: live in the UK with free health cover, or live in France with the system as it is here now, but nobody is in a situation of no health care.

[Joshua]

Groslard

So if I have a heart attack, I should phone Ryanair up and ask can they fit me in on the next available flight, then make my way to Casuality.

The option to return to the UK is always there but for many people they have made France their home and packing up is not going to be quick.

Please go and Forum Bait someone else.

Joshua[:D]

[Russethouse]

Why should people HAVE to make any choice at all groslard ? They are victims of retrospective legislation which has been both poorly thought out and enacted.

Why should anyone have to lose thousands upon thousands of pounds when they have fulfilled every requirement made of them by the the French at the time of the move?

And please do not start this 'they have never paid in' argument again - as I understand it, the French health provision, in common with the British, is funded by the people paying now, there is no 'pot' where you build up a fund' and the people we are talking about are willing to contribute.

Do you perhaps think they should all do some 'little' job ? Then I daresay they will be accused of taking work from the French.

If Sarkozy want to change the legislation, fair enough - but when you have set down terms and conditions for living in France and people adhere to them it is grosly unfair to wait until you have invested your money in the a country by buying property, perhaps employed local people, bought goods locally etc and then say - oh - sorry, we don't want you after all, it stinks.[6]

 

[Benjamin]

Russethouse

Blue in the face springs to mind when replying to this poster on this topic. I've given up even trying, as rational argument just gets swamped by cant.

[cooperlola]

Some of those who can't afford to remain here, or are ill and therefore illegal residents are going home.   But in three weeks they haven't found buyers for their houses.  Sadly, the French and British governments are thus far refusing to fund their deportation/repatriation.

[groslard]

[quote user="Joshua"]Groslard

So if I have a heart attack, I should phone Ryanair up and ask can they fit me in on the next available flight, then make my way to Casuality.

Joshua[:D]

[/quote]

No because you will either already be in the UK, or living in France with health cover.

In any case genuine emergencies are taken care of.

[cooperlola]

Some of those who can't afford to remain here, or are ill and therefore illegal residents are going home.   But in three weeks they haven't found buyers for their houses.  Sadly, the French and British governments are thus far refusing to fund their deportation/repatriation  They are illegally buying their own medications so can't afford to fly back home.  I guess they can just jump off the nearest cliff then everybody can say "serves the lazy early-retired workshy freeloaders right."

[groslard]

[quote user="Benjamin"]Russethouse

Blue in the face springs to mind when replying to this poster on this topic. I've given up even trying, as rational argument just gets swamped by cant.

[/quote]

1)Please define "cant" ( I looked it up in Wikipedia, and dont really see how it applies to my posts)

2) Give example of factual errors in my posts

I suggest you have "given up even trying," because you have no information or arguments to advance, simply opinons

[Joshua]

Gross Lard,

Thats very convenient of my heart attack,

Joshua[:P]

[woolybanana]

Just out of interest, how long do you have to be out of France before you can return as a tourist and how long can you stay? In some countries you used to have to leave for one day in order to stay for six months or somesuch.

It is not illegal to buy medication on the web or anywhere else by the way; As these poor people are not part of the system they cannot follow its rules.

[cooperlola]

You can go back to the UK to get treatment on the NHS but the condition there is residence.  Therefore you must prove you have a legal domicle there.  Once you have done so, you can apply for an EHIC from the UK and get treatment in France for holidays etc.

Although you are right about the medicines, of course, woolyb, you MUST have a full and comprehensive insurance which covers all these aspects:

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?oldURL=true&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006073189&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006742909&dateTexte=20080118

This, as you see, must - by statute - include cover for medicines, doctor's visits, optical and dental treatment - even pregnancy!!!!

So yes, although I was technically incorrect, you must still have insurance for medicines, you cannot just decide to not have any cover and "pay as you go."  This is the very important and fundamental distinction between the rules as they stood before CMU existed and now.  If you do not qualify for any state scheme (CMU de base/complementaire/Regime Generale etc) then you must have "FULL AND COMPREHENSIVE" private insurance.  That was my point.

EDIT : As an aside, but an important one, we have been told that if you cannot prove that you have had this full cover in the period between E106 expiry and five years' residence, you may not qualify under the five year residency rule if your cover was illegal.

[groslard]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

EDIT : As an aside, but an important one, we have been told that if you cannot prove that you have had this full cover in the period between E106 expiry and five years' residence, you may not qualify under the five year residency rule if your cover was illegal.

[/quote]

Good. That will catch the ones who avoided paying into the CMU by keeping a convenience address in the  UK, and relied on using the EHIC from the UK if they needed treatment...

[max]

hello

well the time spent in france could always be looked at as a holiday, then thanks would have to be given to the french governerment for the cover that has been recieved up till now.

max

[Russethouse]

What ! You mean that they should thank the French government for the cover the Uk government has been paying for.?

That's certainly a novel approach.

[minnie]

I really think this sniping between groslard and max is not helping at all.  I am one of those E106 people whose cover has just expired.  I'm a former civil servant of over 30 years who accepted retirement early to assist with the need for personnel cuts.  We're fortunate not to have serious existing conditions and are awaiting acceptance for private health insurance.  We live modestly and quietly, integrating fully with our French neighbours and I believe, we're well accepted.  This kind of sniping might quite easily lead to a heart attack in a vulnerable person who now has no cover !!  I really wonder at the motives of both Max & Groslard.  To them I would say just be thankful that you are not involved in allof this!!!

[Joshua]

Spot on. Minnie

Joshua[:D]

[groslard]

I can't accept that I am doing any 'sniping'

If you look back at my posts they simply set out the history of the CMU, and state the fact that people are not left without health care options, just that the ones they have may not be easy.

For example you don't have to sell your house before going back to the UK, and you dont have to buy one there,but these options are not attractive. 

[woolybanana]

30 years equals full pension and full benefits. Well, there is the heart of the problem.

[Scooby]

I've worked fulltime for the last thirty years, including changing professions (from clinical scientist to tax lawyer), funded all my education since 16, and raised three kids.  I don't plan to retire for at least another ten years.  Maybe Max has a point about how the French see the inactifs - wealthy and not as hardworking as themselves??

[Joshua]

Hi Wooly..........

Local government pensions are based on 1/80th for each full years service with a maximum of 40/80ths, that's 1/2 pay

So a FULL pension is half final pay plus a pro-rata lump sum.

Most people in local government service could have had a higher salary in the private sector but opt for security and a reasonable pension at the end.

Lots of Councils, to balance budgets, look to lose jobs by offering early retirement and often people retire only with the service they have worked.

Joshua[:D]

[woolybanana]

It is the word retirement then that is the sticking point. Let us say change of direction instead so that we all understand each other. With an expectation to work at least 42 years perhaps minus years in full time education. 30 years on its own is not enough to expect support until 75 or 80 plus. Whether one is in  the pubic or private sector. In  any country.

Your personal situation is then essentially that of victim. Of government stupidity.

[groslard]

At last we are beginning to see some accurate reporting of the issue in the British press:

"

The Couverture de Maladie Universelle (CMU) was created to

provide public healthcare to anyone who lived in France but could

not obtain cover from any other public system.

The vast majority of people living in France obtain cover from

mandatory healthcare schemes through employment, self-employment,

unemployment, retirement, rights carried over from another EU Member

State, rights of a spouse, partner or parent, etc., leaving a small

gap to be covered by the CMU."

From the Telegraph