Jump to content

Is the time right to raise our game


Recommended Posts

[quote user="cooperlola"]

  Nowadays far more hospitals in the UK are checking on the residence of people asking for treatment - they no longer take in on trust that because you sound British, you must have a right to free treatment.

[/quote]

I had experience of this last year after yet another retinal detachment, in France the emphasis was on speed, ambulances to the eye hospital and to from the CT scanner hospital folowed immediately by an emergency operation to minimise the damage being done, the paperwork formalities were definitely secondary and taken care of afterwards.

In the UK it took 40 hours of stressfull driving between hospitals (not entitled to an ambulance) to finally see a specialist who did not want to be called out and who would not make a hospital referral but said that I had to find my own way to the Moorfield eye hospital by train and tube on Monday morning to try my luck when they opened, that is after being blinded by using the dilatory drops that she said I had to use before leaving.

I finally received good care and an operation just in time to save the eye at the Brighton eye hospital but there the emphasis was definitely on proving residence and the right to NHS treatment or no admittance whatsoever.

Its an off the wall suggestion but British nationals who cannot get treated on the NHS would probably be far better off seeking treatment in Australia.

I was hospitalised there for a horrible bout of Falciparum Malaria in 2004, when I was discharged I asked for the bill (I had full medical insurance) and they said "no worries, you dont have to pay you are British"  I asked them how they could be sure and did they want my passport but they said I sounded like a Pom which was good enough, I must have been whinging during the delerium[:)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it’s just my patience wearing thin.

I was hoping for a bit of brain storming and lateral

thinking

If it takes a bit of what ever you want to call it

Get on with it,

Sorry, Folks, it must have been the way I was reading the

comments

I’ll get my prayer mat out.

Joshua ( having a bad day )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

 

.With the introduction of CMU it became illegal for total private medical assurance to be offered.For British people thinking of moving to France Exeter Friendly were one of the leading assurance coys offering medical assurance which for a couple early 50,s was about 150 pounds a month ,if my memory serves me correct .

[/quote]

I had Exeter Friendly for 3 years till I was admitted into the Assurance Maladie by virtue of my job. It cost me about £70 a month at at the time (mid 90s) and was comprehensive, bur required you to pay for medicines etc and claim them back.  I believe there were some 'franchises' (I forget the word in English) ...you had to pay the first £x of medicines.

There was also a clause about getting authorisation before certain procedures, which fortunately I never had to test.

I was refused (wrongly) admittance to the Assurance Maladie several times because the official at the CPAM did not understand the system of co-efficients which are applied to some jobs, and miscalculated the hours I had accrued. This is why it took me so long to get into the system, and believe me I know plenty about difficult and incompetent officialdom.

This Insurance, plus either a contract of employment, or proof of resources were essential to get a Carte de Séjour and be legally resident.

In fact I regret that this is no longer the case: if it had  still been in place between 2000-2007 the present situation would have been avoided.

I would also introduce a test of French, and knowledge of French history, values and culture to everybody wishing to settle here ( a bit like tests of English  etc in the UK) but that is another can of worms...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

That is an extract from a European directive  long before the EU directive of 2004.So the UK Government were aware of this directive for many years ,what they were not aware of was the intention of the French Government to implement new measures in September of last year 2007 by using the directive to exclude EU citizens from CMU.That was a French Government decision and unless the British Secret service have spies in the French health ministry I cannot see how the FCO and British Embassy could possibly have forseen this.

[/quote]

To say that they would not expect things because that is the way it had been for a while is in itself a damning statement in regard to the professionalism of those involved.  The impact of all new legislation is supposed to be assessed not assumed.

It wouldn't have been beyond the wit of a professional British rep involved in negotiations on the draft Directive to ask what the impact might be in various countries. 

Equally, after publication of the Directive the 'professionals' should have known as there were certain requirements in the Directive such as: 'No later than 30 April 2006 the Commission shall submit a report on the application of this Directive to the European Parliament and the Council' and 'Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 April 2006.' and 'Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive together with a table showing how the provisions of this Directive correspond to the national provisions adopted.' [Articles 39 & 40]

I thought the whole idea of the FCO/the Minister for Europe's staff/embassy staff etc was to keep in touch with what might be happening abroad.  It would not have taken M16 to determine how the French would be applying the new Directive - a simple question would have elicited that information as it was clearly not classified, publicity about changes being required by Article 34 of the Directive (even if the actualite left something to be desired!).

It shouldn't have been too difficult for the FCO to keep an eye on what was happening as the French Embassy in London has a section dedicated to social/health matters contactable at [email protected] . Surely the FCO must have met with them after the Directive was published for the odd canapé or coffee...would they not have a professional interest in finding out what impact there may be on British Citizens?

Equally, as the British Embassy in France hosts information for British Nationals including Living in France and healthcare etc matters, it would not be unreasonable to expect that someone from there would check with a contact in the French Govt to see if any new EU Directive would have any impact about which they would need to alert British Nationals.

I am not at all forgiving of the British professionals who failed to check this out and alert people earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The impact of all new legislation is supposed to be assessed not assumed."

You are assuming that the FCO did not assess the impact of the directive and did not discuss it with the French.  From the French point of view, there was to be no change in residency criteria, so we can only assume that the FCO took this stance into account at the time.

Further, who's to say that a 'what if' scenario wasn't considered as well?  Such a potential change in criteria would likely to have been assessed in terms of it's future impact and it would have been reasonable to discount an unexpected punitive retrospective application in terms of heathcare. What if the French originally gave assurances that the situation would not change for existing expats, then took a political decision to reverse this position?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

"The impact of all new legislation is supposed to be assessed not assumed."

You are assuming that the FCO did not assess the impact of the directive and did not discuss it with the French.  From the French point of view, there was to be no change in residency criteria, so we can only assume that the FCO took this stance into account at the time.

Further, who's to say that a 'what if' scenario wasn't considered as well?  Such a potential change in criteria would likely to have been assessed in terms of it's future impact and it would have been reasonable to discount an unexpected punitive retrospective application in terms of heathcare. What if the French originally gave assurances that the situation would not change for existing expats, then took a political decision to reverse this position?

[/quote]

I was accepting as a start-point that the French Government would be honest with the British Govt in this matter - they would have nothing to gain in being otherwise as their plans had to be published by 2006.  If they were honest then their British counterparts failed to act professionally in briefing British Nationals.

I didn't really understand the significance of the phrase 'there was to be no change in residence criteria'. The point I was making was that the British professionals had a responsibility to clarify how the French Govt would apply the Directive.  That duty was irrespective of what had or had not changed. The British professionals had a duty to find out what the intentions of each Member State was in regard to the application of the Directive so that those British professionals could provide guidance to British Nationals.  If they did find out then they did not provide guidance as we well know.

As regards whether there was or was not 'change', the criterion covering healthcover for 'inactif' residents was affected to the extent that it changed the previous compulsory affiliation to state healthcover and the ban on private health insurance to the current arrangements.  This change was significant to existing residents affiliated to the CMU who were told they would no longer be legally resident if they did not have alternative healthcover.  Albeit things have now changed for them, this stance was undetected or unremarked upon by the British professionals in advance.  So too was the position, in regard to residence, of those people who may have been resident for up to 2.5 years on an E106 - they are no longer legally resident if they have no alternative healthcover e.g. they have been refused private healthcover.  This also means that their continuous legal residence for the 5 year rule on permanent residence is undermined.

I don't know what actually happened before and when the UK Govt introduced its own legislation pursuant to the Directive but I do know from experience that the preparation of such legislation normally involves the preparation of a brief of what other parties (in this case Member States) are doing.  This is done to see if life can be made easier and other parties' ideas 'cribbed' and also to ensure that, if we are not in step with others, then we are clear as to why. If this information was not obtained then I would be surprised.

So I still cannot accept that enough was done by those British professionals responsible for keeping British Nationals up-to-date.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Jim Murphy and the FCO (Paris)

If these guys were builders working on your home you would be asking how to get your money back.  Its a complete comedy, "I'll get the job finished next week", "waiting for parts, expected any day now", "I should be round tomorrow to get it working safely", etc.  Were a builder to prove this (un)reliable then you would be well pi**ed-off whatever the reasons.  Always a new reason/time-scale/something but the result is the same - "we are expecting clarification this week/next week/soon/whenever/maybe this year/..."

This can be sorted.  It is quite within the capabilities of mankind.  So why isn't it.  It does not take that long for governments to make decisions.

Ian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Deimos"]Re: Jim Murphy and the FCO (Paris)
If these guys were builders working on your home you would be asking how to get your money back.  Its a complete comedy, "I'll get the job finished next week", "waiting for parts, expected any day now", "I should be round tomorrow to get it working safely", etc.  Were a builder to prove this (un)reliable then you would be well pi**ed-off whatever the reasons.  Always a new reason/time-scale/something but the result is the same - "we are expecting clarification this week/next week/soon/whenever/maybe this year/..."

This can be sorted.  It is quite within the capabilities of mankind.  So why isn't it.  It does not take that long for governments to make decisions.

Ian[/quote]

 

But Jim Murphy and the British Embassy are not the ones who are doing building work on your house,it is the French Health Ministry/Government.

Jim Murphy and the FCO do not have any sort of contract with you to build your house however out of a sense of duty because you have asked them for help they have approached the builders and are trying to sort the mess out.

If It was me I would tell you that I am fed up with your constant whinging ,I am trying to sort it but not only am I getting  no thanks I am now getting the blame for the builders incompetence and I would tell you to stuff it and sort it yourself as it was none of my doing . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

[quote user="Deimos"]Re: Jim Murphy and the FCO (Paris)

If these guys were builders working on your home you would be asking how to get your money back.  Its a complete comedy, "I'll get the job finished next week", "waiting for parts, expected any day now", "I should be round tomorrow to get it working safely", etc.  Were a builder to prove this (un)reliable then you would be well pi**ed-off whatever the reasons.  Always a new reason/time-scale/something but the result is the same - "we are expecting clarification this week/next week/soon/whenever/maybe this year/..."

This can be sorted.  It is quite within the capabilities of mankind.  So why isn't it.  It does not take that long for governments to make decisions.

Ian[/quote]

 

But Jim Murphy and the British Embassy are not the ones who are doing building work on your house,it is the French Health Ministry/Government.

Jim Murphy and the FCO do not have any sort of contract with you to build your house however out of a sense of duty because you have asked them for help they have approached the builders and are trying to sort the mess out.

If It was me I would tell you that I am fed up with your constant whinging ,I am trying to sort it but not only am I getting  no thanks I am now getting the blame for the builders incompetence and I would tell you to stuff it and sort it yourself as it was none of my doing . 

 

[/quote]

I probably did not make it clear in my post/profile but I am  a British Citizen (but no way I could expect others to know that).

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BaF - Isn't it a touch imperious just to keep people in the dark the way they have been? Take Jim Murphy - very modern and touchy feely to have a blog, but what use if you never reply or even ask another to ? A simple acknowledgment would be polite.

As for the debacle that was billed as a 'live web chat' - [:@]

Actually I think it is the French who are in dereliction of their duty, it is them that have made a change and it my feeling that it is their responsibility to let not only British (and other non French Europeans)residents know the situation but also the various branches of CPAM, in a timely manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]What has yor nationality got to do with the incompetent builders and their delays in completion[/quote]

Sorry, seems I'm being too cryptic.  The builder thing was an analogy.  I'll avoid them in future as they seem to confuse.

Ian

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...