BREAKING NEWS ON EXPAT HEALTH COVER

[makfai]

[quote user="tigerfeet"]

I am thinking of using this as a complaint to the EU , can anyone confirm that France has not made this public knowledge through the French media ?

[/quote]

I have already submitted my own complaint (see below) and hope that it is just one of many.  I have also registered it as a Petition. You are welcome to plagiarise it as much or as little as you want. 

As regards the evidence of lack of publicity,  I think you need look no further for re-assurance than a) the emails we were getting from the British Embassy; and b) the reaction of the insurance industry.  If they had known about it you would have seen massive adverts with countdowns to the deadline of 1 October 2007!.  Instead of that they have been running behind the bus to catch-up.  Make no mistake, the 6 month extension for people to getsorted out was as much for them to get insurance pakcages sorted as it was about any altruistic motives for residents!

 

Complaint about Publicity and Deadlines - France

 

 

a)      EU Directive 2004/38EC which gave rise to the French Government’s legislation

 

·         ‘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’

 

was published in April 2004. Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 April 2006 (Article 40 EU Directive 2004/38EC). As can be seen from the date of the French legislation the EU’s deadline of 30 April 2006 was not met.

 b)      The Directive further required in Article 36 that

 

‘Member States shall lay down provisions on the sanctions applicable to breaches of national rules adopted for the implementation of this Directive and shall take the measures required for their application. The sanctions laid down shall be effective and proportionate. Member States shall notify the Commission of these provisions not later than 30 April 2006 and as promptly as possible in the case of any subsequent changes.’

 c)      Member states were also required to ‘disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of Union citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive, particularly by means of awareness-raising campaigns conducted through national and local media and other means of communication’ (Article 34 EU Directive 2004/38EC).

 d)      Despite all of these provisions, it was not until 19^th (amended on 24^th) September 2007 that the French government published its official statement (containing dates on which changes would take effect) to clarify its position.

 e)      Even now, and despite some information being available on Service-public.fr (http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/F12017.xhtml?&n= Etrangers% 20en%20France&l=N8&n=Citoyens% 20communautaires %20en%20France&l=N112), it is clear from talking to people, reading letters and reading posts on the internet that those persons affected do not clearly know:

 

·         what the administrative formalities are for Union Citizens already resident (Article 8);

·         how the five year rule will be applied to residents who wish to join the CMU (Article 16);

·         what the administrative formalities are for obtaining a document certifying permanent residence for Union Citizens already resident (Article 19)

·         what the sanctions and procedures (including appeal procedures) are (Article 36).

 f)        French law had previously required all to join the state system and had prohibited private insurance (Loi 99-641 CMU of 27th July 1999 and Loi DDOS of 4th February 1995).  The provision of private insurance within France by the commercial insurance industry was not even in its infancy. The failure to provide the publicity required by law in respect of this Directive has not only increased alarm amongst existing and potential residents affected but has prevented the insurance industry from having a reasonable lead-in time to cost and prepare alternative products to meet the demands of all affected. 

 g)      It could be argued that this has been mitigated by the ‘grace period’ extended to those residents already affiliated to the CMU but that is nothing like the time to which residents and the insurance industry were entitled when the Directive was promulgated in April 2004.  In addition the grace period did not apply equally to all residents.  It only applied to those who were already affiliated to the CMU and did not apply to potential residents or those existing residents on ‘E’ forms (e.g. E106).

 h)      The duty to publicise was clearly one for Member States.  The French Government has failed to meet its responsibilities in regard to bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 April 2006 (Article 40 EU Directive 2004/38EC) and has failed to meet its obligations in regard to Articles 34 and 36 which required adequate and advance publicity. 

 

[londoneye]

Done also - completely plagiarised it I am afraid !

When you say you have registered it as a petition, what does that mean exactly?

[makfai]

[quote user="londoneye"]

Done also - completely plagiarised it I am afraid !

When you say you have registered it as a petition, what does that mean exactly?

[/quote]

Plagiarise away!!!!!!  If you like you can have another one complaining that what the French Government has done is illegal because of Article 24 of the Directive and UN agreements. Just let me have your email address.

The following may be of interest

French Ombudsman

http://www.mediateur-republique.fr/

Petition

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&language=EN

Complaint

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/your_rights/your_rights_en.htm

EU Ombudsman

http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/home/en/default.htm

The EU Ombudsman may be abit of red-herring as he is there to deal with problems with the EU bodies not national ones.  But at EU Level you can Petition as well as Complain.  I am doing both!  Doubles the statistics for one thing and spreads the word to a wider audience for another.

[Bertiebe]

Excellent work again Makfai.   Have also plagiarised and submitted a complaint and petition, more power to the elbow!!  Thanks for all your help.

[makfai]

[quote user="Bertiebe"]Excellent work again Makfai.   Have also plagiarised and submitted a complaint and petition, more power to the elbow!!  Thanks for all your help.[/quote]

 

Glad it was of use...there is another one on page 32 of:

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=32&PostID=1079872

[Cat]

New story http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=493382&in_page_id=1811

And who's this feeding them information [:)]

[caramac]

[quote user="Cat"]

And who's this feeding them information [:)]

[/quote]

D.D.?     Obviously a nom de plume....[;-)]

[mint]

Nevermind who DD is, Caramac, she has my total admiration!

[mint]

Nevermind who DD is, Caramc, she has my total admiration!

Sorry for double post, I got quite carried away!

[Benjamin]

[quote user="caramac"][quote user="Cat"]

And who's this feeding them information [:)]

[/quote]

D.D.?     Obviously a nom de plume....[;-)]

[/quote]

It's that hairdresser bird again.  [:D]

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="caramac"][quote user="Cat"]

And who's this feeding them information [:)]

[/quote]

D.D.?     Obviously a nom de plume....[;-)]
[/quote]

It's that hairdresser bird again.  [:D]


[/quote][:D]

[Caussenarde]

Because of the wording of Article 7 of EU Directive 2004/38EC we're all talking about the need for comprehensive sickness insurance cover. And the French health issues web site Q & A page has:

Q.  It seems fair to me!  Surely everyone can get insurance?

A.  The requirement is for those affected to have "comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host member state" (Article 7 of EU Directive 2004/38EC).  It is well accepted that insurance companies will not cover "pre-existing medical conditions".  If this remains the insurance industry's position, how will people in that situation obtain "COMPREHENSIVE" cover?  They will not be able to meet the requirements of the law even if they try.  What happens then to those persons already resident in France who will be excluded from state health care and from private cover?

And sure enough, in French the EU Directive says:

'une assurance maladie complète'  i.e. comprehensive.

But I've just noticed that the French Govt's servicepublic.fr site refers to the medical insurance' that EU inactifs must have as:

'assurance maladie-maternité offrrant un certain nombre de prestations'

which to me says it doesn't have to be comprehensive. In other words, it's OK if it covers all the conditions you haven't got and doesn't matter (except to you) that it doesn't cover pre-existing conditions.

This page has recently been updated to make the distinction between actifs and inactifs. Have they moved the goalposts to remove the arguments of those who can't get 'comprehensive' cover? 

I'm not sure whether this is a new observation, but to me the French Govt is interpreting (changing) the meaning of the EU directive to meet its own ends.  At a stroke they've removed the need for comprehensive cover.

[cooperlola]

Surely that's just the maternity cover - unlikely to affect a lot of early retired people , Caussenarde?  Do you have the link?

[Cat]

I think it's this one http://www.servicepubliclocal.com/spl/accueil.spl?c=547706&f=N0/N21/N12170/F12017/

And it does indeed say "une attestation d'assurance maladie-maternité offrrant un certain nombre de prestations" [:-))]

[Caussenarde]

The link is :

http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/F12017.xhtml?&n=Etrangers%20en%20France&l=N8&n=Citoyens%20communautaires%20en%20France&l=N112#titreN1006A

I'm sure 'assurance maladie-maternite' just means the whole assurance maladie, which covers you for maladie as well as maternity! 

It's under the heading 'Demande facultative de carte de sejour'. So if you apply for an (optional) carte de sejour they will be able to check that you have assurance maladie.

Under the heading 'Droit de sejour' is just refers to 'an assurance maladie-maternite' i.e. no use of the word 'complet'.

[cooperlola]

Yup, got it now, thanks Caussenarde and Cat.  Fascinating.  Doesn't help much except, as you say, to help the authorities wriggle out of the situation more easily.

[Boiling a frog]

Unfortunately you cannot just go on general guidelines.People need to read the laws from which the general guidelines are published

http://vosdroits.service-public.fr/particuliers/F12017.xhtml?&n=Etrangers%20en%20France&l=N8&n=Citoyens%20communautaires%20en%20France&l=N112

Gives the general guidelines

On that page is a link to the Law

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnCode?&commun=&code=CENTGERL.rcv

from which you link to

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/VisuArticleCode?commun=&code=&h0=CENTGERL.rcv&h1=1&h3=4

Which says

Sauf si sa présence constitue une menace pour l'ordre public, tout citoyen de l'Union européenne, tout ressortissant d'un autre Etat partie à l'accord sur l'Espace économique européen ou de la Confédération suisse a le droit de séjourner en France pour une durée supérieure à trois mois s'il satisfait à l'une des conditions suivantes :
   1º S'il exerce une activité professionnelle en France ;
   2º S'il dispose pour lui et pour les membres de sa famille tels que visés au 4º de ressources suffisantes afin de ne pas devenir une charge pour le système d'assistance sociale, ainsi que d'une assurance maladie ;

You then need to go back to the first link I posted and follow this link

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnCode?&commun=CENTGE&code=CENTGERM.rcv

Which are the regulations covering  how the law as mentioned previously will be regulated

You then link to this

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/VisuArticleCode?commun=CENTGE&code=&h0=CENTGERM.rcv&h1=1&h3=10

Which says

 Les ressortissants qui remplissent les conditions mentionnées à l'article L. 121-1 doivent être munis de l'un des deux documents prévus pour l'entrée sur le territoire français par l'article R. 121-1.
   L'assurance maladie mentionnée à l'article L. 121-1 doit couvrir les prestations prévues aux articles L. 321-1 et L. 331-2 du code de la sécurité sociale.

Everyone following so far

We have now all established that the assurance maladie required will have to cover what is laid out in the Code de la securite sociale Law 321-1 and 331-2

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnArticleDeCode?code=CSECSOCL.rcv&art=L321-1

Is the link to the social security code L321-1

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnArticleDeCode?commun=CSECSO&art=L331-2

Is the link to L331-2

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/WAspad/UnCode?code=CSECSOCL.rcv

Is the link to the whole of the Code de la securite sociale if anyone cares to read it

It is very dangerous just to read general guidelines and then come to a conclusion  without reading the Law and the regulations

[Helen]

Just to add to Boiling a frogs post. I don't think the servi publi site has been updated and it contains that clause.  (date of publication:  22 Mai 2007 - Réf. : F12017)

[cooperlola]

True BaF.  Oddly, as horribe as this appears, it does help us in a way as the coverage required is clearly unreasonable, as it is impossible to obtain if you are sick - which makes the case stronger, in some ways.  As we've discussed before, the level required is clearly virtually impossible to have - especially given the income levels seen as adequate to live on, because if you think about it, they barely cover the costs being required, let alone leave you anything to pay your taxes out of and then to live on!

[BJSLIV]

I always assumed that it was the specified  amount of money and (ie after) paying for the insurance, because you were required to have both the money and the health cover.

[Deimos]

[quote user="cooperlola"]True BaF.  Oddly, as horribe as this appears, it does help us in a way as the coverage required is clearly unreasonable, as it is impossible to obtain if you are sick ...[/quote]

If you look at the details of what needs to be

provided (as posted earlier by somebody and available on

LegiFrance.fr), there is no way you are going to find such a policy

even if you are healthy and have no pre-existing conditions. The

detailed list of what needs to be included is quite exceptional and

would be way beyond any insurance companies offering (even the top of

the range platinum plus offerings).

Ian

[makfai]

[quote user="Caussenarde"]Because of the wording of Article 7 of EU Directive 2004/38EC we're all talking about the need for comprehensive sickness insurance cover. And the French health issues web site Q & A page has:

Q.  It seems fair to me!  Surely everyone can get insurance?

A.  The requirement is for those affected to have "comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host member state" (Article 7 of EU Directive 2004/38EC).  It is well accepted that insurance companies will not cover "pre-existing medical conditions".  If this remains the insurance industry's position, how will people in that situation obtain "COMPREHENSIVE" cover?  They will not be able to meet the requirements of the law even if they try.  What happens then to those persons already resident in France who will be excluded from state health care and from private cover?

And sure enough, in French the EU Directive says:

'une assurance maladie complète'  i.e. comprehensive.

But I've just noticed that the French Govt's servicepublic.fr site refers to the medical insurance' that EU inactifs must have as:

'assurance maladie-maternité offrrant un certain nombre de prestations'

which to me says it doesn't have to be comprehensive. In other words, it's OK if it covers all the conditions you haven't got and doesn't matter (except to you) that it doesn't cover pre-existing conditions.

This page has recently been updated to make the distinction between actifs and inactifs. Have they moved the goalposts to remove the arguments of those who can't get 'comprehensive' cover? 

I'm not sure whether this is a new observation, but to me the French Govt is interpreting (changing) the meaning of the EU directive to meet its own ends.  At a stroke they've removed the need for comprehensive cover.


[/quote]

In addition to 'the  Frog's' comments.  

Any legal interpretation of the words 'assurance maladie' would take into account the original EU Directive as the French legislation refers back to it.  In addition, where a phrase is not legally defined it would be given its normally understood interpretation which in this context, where no other healthcare is being provided by other means, would have to mean 'comprehensive' insurance. It wouldn't make any sense, in this context, to legislate for people to have partial insurance. 

So saying...you would like to think that when the legislation is being prepared that all care is taken. So one assumes [Www] the decision not to use the word 'complète' was a conscious one and should mean something.  BUT.........

[Boiling a frog]

I think this is new information on the embassy website

Access to the French healthcare system for early retirees from other EU countries

The Embassy is still in regular contact with the French Health Ministry and is representing people's concerns regarding access to the French healthcare system for early retirees from other EU countries already residing in France.

We understand that a revised statement to clarify the situation is due shortly from the French Health Ministry

 

Now call me cynical but if Jim Murphy is in negotiations tomorrow and the French Health Minister and Jim Murphy make a joint statement Jim is going to get all the credit and the French minister will not be seen as climbing down ,instead she will have negotiated a settlement with the British Government . 

 

[cooperlola]

To be honest, I don't care who takes the credit, just so long as we get some of what we want, and those who are worst affected are allowed treatment for their illnesses.

[Boiling a frog]

Sorry, slightly tongue in cheek.

Jim Murphy is the MP for East Renfrewshire and my former constituency MP and has taken this matter on board