Clair Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Two articles on the subject:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/10/17/expatriate-health-insurance2.xmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/global/2007/10/17/expatriate-health-insurance3.xmlEdit: the Telegraph website seems to be having problems this morning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Mary Honeyball has now submitted a written declaration to the European Parliament :XXXX/2007Written declaration on health care provision for European Citizens residing in another Member StateThe European Parliament,– having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,A. whereas EU law upholds the right to freedom of movement and freedom of residence across the European Union,B. whereas access to health care is fundamentally important to all citizens1. Recognises the fundamental principle of reciprocity of health care provision across the European Union,2. Expresses grave concern that some EU citizens not born in France but legally resident there are being denied state health care provision despite paying all relevant taxes, 3. Recognises that private health care may not be available or affordable for citizens with disabilities or those with existing conditions,4. Calls on Member States to uphold the principle of reciprocity of health care provision; further calls on Member States not to make changes to health care provision that will deny EU citizens, who are non-nationals access to state health care,5. Calls on the European Commission to undertake a review of the manner in which Member States generally are operating the principal of reciprocity of health care provision to ensure that all Member States are complying with their obligations under the Treaties in this regard,6. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJSLIV Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 What's up, has it changed back again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Sorry BJSLIV, still investigating. [:-))] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I wrote to my (UK) MEP's regarding the changes to the health system and got two replies. Make of them what you will:1) received 18/10/07Further to my email of 24th September (receipt of E-mail), Giles has asked meto let you know that he has taken up this issue with the Prime Minister.Please bear with us while we await a reply from GordonBrown. Kind regardsNetia Carr (Mrs)Secretary to Giles Chichester MEPand2) received 19/10/07Thank you for your email to Graham Booth MEP and as he is currently away from the office he has asked me to reply on his behalf. He is sorry to hear that you are affected by this issue - he is aware about it and has been contacted by a number of British citizens living in France. Unfortunately there is nothing he can do as this is a domestic French decision made by the French government. The only way ofinfluencing policy development is via the French political system. His bestadvice is for you, along with others, to lobby French politicians and French representatives for the are where you live.With kind regards Yours sincerelyS PalfreyAssistant to Graham Booth MEP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Jay, I got a similar daft reply from an MEP. For what it's worth, here is my reply. Although not directly relevant, I hope you can find some useful bits in it to rebut Graham Booth's response. At least you can use bits of it to point out that it is certainly an EU matter. Mary Honeyball clearly believes that it is too!:"You stated that the French Government is simply upholding Directive 38/2004 which requires that any 'inactive' wishing to move to France should have 'comprehensive sickness insurance'. I am sure that you are well aware that this requirement is not a new initiative but existed in the legislation that Directive 38/2004 replaced. In which case, why is it that for the last 7 years 'inactive' British nationals living in France were required by French law to join the French Health system via the CMU and that if a British national had in fact had private 'comprehensive sickness insurance', they would have been in breach of French law ? I am sure that the French Government has not sought to disregard European law for the past 7 years but that perhaps instead, the French Government were able to make use of a "more favourable provision " clause which allowed British nationals in France to legally affiliate to the CMU without either party being in breach of European law.It is worthy of note, that a similar provision exists in the present Directive as such, France could continue to accept both current and newcomers into their health system. The French Government have not been legally forced into their current position by the Directive, they have voluntarily chosen to take this stance.The French CMU (Couverture Maladie Universelle) is quite clear in its conditions for entry,http://www.cmu.fr/site/cmu.php4?Id=5&PHPSESSID=31f391728f618242091f9f8e2cf67194and nowhere is it stated that French "inactifs" are now to be excluded from it. So clearly, even though UK citizens comply with each and every condition within it - apart from the fact of their national origin and the colour of their passport - the discrimination here is against our country of birth, not our employment situation.Further, the condition for EU nationals in the UK to receive NHS treatment, is based purely on residence, is it not? Those of us who live in France currently, complied with the conditions of residence here in France,as they legally existed when they moved. They have already gained and established their right of residency and are, ipso facto, settled here, as of right. However, the retrospective nature of this move, is to alter the conditions for those who have already complied. How is this even legal, let alone moral?Finally, it is a condition, under EU directives, to publicise fully, any changes which are made which affect or may affect citizens of member states. Clearly, this has not been done. Around 7,000 UK citizens alone, have E106s which are running currently. It is likely that at least 30% of these are about to lose all access to state healthcare in January. Many others face exclusion from the CMU in March next year. And yet, the British Embassy's Paris arm has a website which still informs citizens that they can join the CMU - even though its sister site in the UK has been altered. No official announcement has been made in either the UK or the French media, and the French health helplines and websites are still unclear and ill-informed. If nothing else, this directive alone is being flouted." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makfai Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 [quote user="Jay"] 2) received 19/10/07Thank you for your email to Graham Booth MEP and as he is currently away from the office he has asked me to reply on his behalf. He is sorry to hear that you are affected by this issue - he is aware about it and has been contacted by a number of British citizens living in France. Unfortunately there is nothing he can do as this is a domestic French decision made by the French government. The only way of influencing policy development is via the French political system. His best advice is for you, along with others, to lobby French politicians and French representatives for the are where you live.With kind regards Yours sincerelyS PalfreyAssistant to Graham Booth MEP[/quote]This is ridiculous but is a misconception based on the mis-interpretation that this is all about healthcare. Healthcare falls within the purview of the national government so the MEP thinks that is aa nice get-out. However, the French legislation stems from EU Legislation and is to do with rights of residence - i.e. immigration. Which the EU has a say in. The EU Directive (2004/38EC) on which the French law is based says that it is about 'the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC'. The aim of the Directive was: ‘to codify and review the existing Community instruments dealing separately with workers, self-employed persons, as well as students and other inactive persons in order to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens.'In fact the French law is unambiguous on the fact that it is about residence/immigration as its titles are: ‘LOI no 2006-911 du 24 juillet 2006 relative à l’immigration et à l’intégration’ and Décret n° 2007-371 du 21 mars 2007 relatif au droit de séjour en France des citoyens de l'Union européenne, des ressortissants des autres Etats parties à l'Espace économique européen et de la Confédération suisse ainsi que des membres de leur famille’ and the English law is equally unambiguous: 'Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1003 The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006’. The EU Directive compelled EU Member States to make legislation - so to suggest that it is not the business of an MEP is nonsense and a sign of incompetenceI have also emailed you. Keep plugging away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 With kind regards Yours sincerelyS PalfreyAssistant to Graham Booth MEPI'm sorry if this causes offence but WHAT A T*SSER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Avery Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Benjamin old chum, what do you expect from a member of UKIP?They would rather not have a European Parliament at all and UKIP are certainly not going to support those who associate with those dagos and froggies over the water[:D]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 But if it gives them a nice fat salary and a comfy life in Belgium, what the heck? So what if we are paying these tos.... What was the word, Benjamin?[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lehaut Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Those of us who have the 5 year residency box ticked may be interested in the following which I have just received from the Embassy in Paris. Have been pushing them for a reply for some time: Dear ..... We understand that this situation is very frustrating. However, I assure you - as I said in my previous email - that our Health Attaché is in regular contact with the French Health Ministry regarding this measure and is representing your concerns. Because this measure has only recently been instated, not all CPAM offices have yet received the updated information from the French government. The French Health Ministry will be sending a circular to the local CPAM offices clarifying the directive on residency very soon. This is French law and the French Ministry of Health has to issue this information to its own local offices. We are working with the French government to make sure that they do this as quickly as possible. Kind regardsSara GillPress and CommunicationsBritish Embassy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Thanks Lehaut. I had also heard that a circular was going out, and also that the "5 year" rule might be clarified to CPAMs but nothing as to its true content. Thanks for that.Can we put this reply on our website? Pretty please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lehaut Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 [quote user="cooperlola"]Thanks Lehaut. I had also heard that a circular was going out, and also that the "5 year" rule might be clarified to CPAMs but nothing as to its true content. Thanks for that.Can we put this reply on our website? Pretty please?[/quote] Fine, if it helps others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Re: the British Embassy ResponseIt says that apparently not all CPAMs have beentold yet but it does not say what the CPAMs are being told. Givenhow the French have previously given assurances and changed theirmids I whould have expected the British Embassy to have beenfurnished a copy of what was being sent to the cPAM offices - so theycan be sure and confidant exactly what was said. If they are justgoing on verbal assurances again - then they are probably not worththe paper ... (except of course there is actually nothing in writingat all).Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 There is apparently a statement "in the pipeline" going out to CPAMs - this Embassy response is not the first time I have heard about this. I know no details, sadly, but believe that the 5 year rule, and existing chronic conditions may be mentioned. But you are right, Ian, just rumour until we see it. We are keeping an eye fixed on the government circulars website all the time.... Until then we limp along in limbo. Can't be doing anybody's health any good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maricopa Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Whilst not "breaking news" we have just received letters from the CPAM at Beziers, asking us to either request extensions from the UK to our E106's, or to furnish further proof of our situation in France to allow them to restudy our rights ( preusmably to health cover) It does not, currently, ask us to provide proof of health insurance.It comes from the Relations Internationales department, and interestingly quotes our temporary Social Security numbers, not the permanent ones on our Carte Vitales. A copy of the text itself (produced by OCR, hence no accents)is below:-La validite du formulaire E 106 prenant fin Ie 05/01/2008, je vous informe que les droits servis au titre des Relations Internationales de Securite Sociale ne seront plus ouverts aupres de notre organisme. Je vous demande de bien vouloir contacter dans les meilleurs delais votre Organisme de Securite Sociale a l'etranger pour obtenir Ie renouvellement de votre formulaire afin de me permettre de reconduire vos droits aupres de nos services. En cas de non renouvellement dudit formulaire, veuillez vous presenter a I' accueil de notre organisme dans les meilleurs delais muni de votre Carte Vitale et de tout justificatif de votre situation actuelle pour une nouvelle etude de vos droits. Veuillez agreer, Monsieur, l'assurance de ma consideration distinguee. It does however firmly state that from the date of expiry of our E106's, that we will no longer have the right to access to their services.Just thought this might be of general interest.[:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Perhaps its going to be a requirement, somewhere along the line, that you present a refusal of the right to an E106. I'd get something in writing asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusty Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 [quote user="Russethouse"]Perhaps its going to be a requirement, somewhere along the line, that you present a refusal of the right to an E106. I'd get something in writing asap.[/quote]I must have had a premonition , I emailed to see if mine could be extended last week and have had a reply from DWP saying no , when it ends in jan 2008 thats it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 [quote user="Russethouse"]Perhaps its going to be a requirement, somewhere along the line, that you present a refusal of the right to an E106. I'd get something in writing asap.[/quote]It was always the case that you had to present the "no longer entitled" letter from the DWP in the days when you needed it to get into the CMU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 I notice the British Embassy web site now saysthat the French are honouring the 5-year residence rule. However,there is no date on this info so I have no idea if this is today'sdecision, last weeks, or still hanging around from Sept (why dopeople rarely put dates on web pages !!).Also, the link for the info they give - to theFrench service public site thing is to a page dated 24/Sept and makesno mention of the 5 year rule - just says "no E106/E121 and"inactif" and you are out. Is this old news or is theresome change ?Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 The 5-year rule has been on the embassy site for quite a while now, old news, no change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maricopa Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 I have given further thought to my previous post, and I suspect this might be the standard letter two months (or so), before the E106 expires[8-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chassaing Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 Today we went out to test the French Healthcare System without a Carte Vitale and just our Full Healthcare.OK it was just a Dental Xray, but it reminded me of this video. Enjoy a few truths..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JJ-tK7-gIkPS. The Xray cost us €30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Received a letter from l'Assurance Maladie today 31/10/07 which I have copied below. We have been in France for 5 years and have Carte de Sejour dated November '02, we also have filled in tax forms here since day one. It would seem from this the 5 year rule does NOT apply. Anyone else in a similar situation?J'ai bien reçuvotre courrier du 04/09/2007... présentant une demande de renouvellement dubénéfice de la CMU. Je vous informequ'en raison de l'évolution du droit communautaire, les conditions d'accès à laprotection sociale des ressortissants communautaires « inactifs » ont étémodifiées. Aux termes de la directive communautaire n° 2004/38/CE du 29 avril2004 transposée dans notre législation nationale par la loi n° 2006-911 du 24juillet 2006 et le décret n° 2007-371 du 21 mars 2007, votre droit au séjourest soumis à deux conditions : être préalablement bénéficiaire d'une assurancemaladie et disposer de ressources suffisantes. Cette nouvelleréglementation ne permet plus à la Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie de laCharente de renouveler vos droits à la CMU. Je vous invite donc à contracterune assurance privée afin de garantir votre prise en charge. A titretransitoire, votre couverture maladie est néanmoins maintenue par la caisseprimaire jusqu'au 31 mars 2008 afin de vous permettre d'accomplir toutesdémarches utiles à votre affiliation auprès de l'organisme privé de votrechoix. Je vous invite à vous adresser à nos services afin qu'ils procèdent à l'enregistrement de cesdroits temporaires dans votre carte vitale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now