Cranachan8 Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 HiIf the French Government will generate more income (than they currently do by the 8% contribution made by non-french EU inactifs) and this money will go towards helping France and her people, then I think that it is an excellent idea to insist that any inactif newcomer to France be expected to take out private healthcare insurance (and be financially self-sufficient).However, to state the obvious, as things stand at the moment, the difficulty arises with those people who are already in France with E106s and also those who are tying up things in the UK (or elsewhere) having already committed to making the move to France (let's not forget this population). It seems that this difficulty is exacerbated for people who have / had pre-existing medical conditions prior to their arrival in France e.g. diabetes, cancer, heart disease. Pre-existing medical conditions also include psychiatric / psychological diagnoses such as ADHD, Depression, OCD, other Anxiety-related Disorders, Psychosis, etc. As a Clinical Psychologist, this concerns me immensely.Forget arguing for retrospectism, we should be asking the French Government to put a future date on this change, i.e from 29th September 2009, all EU inactif immigrants will be expected to take out private health insurance following the end of their E106 cover. (This should cover all those who have already made plans to "retire" to France early)I'm asking for the moon.....Cran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Coeur de Lion Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 From the British Embassy website:http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1064572873553#SSHC French government's new decision on access to the French healthcare system for inactive citizens from other EU countries (14/12/07)Following representations made to the French government, we can confirm that the French Health Ministry has modified its decision regarding access to the French healthcare system for inactive citizens from other EU countries already residing in France.According to the French Health Ministry's official revised statement and Q&A factsheet http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm the position is: Inactive EU citizens already living in France and already registered and accessing healthcare via the CMU before 23 November 2007 will now be allowed to continue to do so. After 5 years of "regular, uninterrupted residence" in France, an EU citizen qualifies as a permanent French resident and will therefore have access to healthcare via the CMU. The position remains that all inactive EU citizens under retirement age living in France now or in future who are not entitled to healthcare reimbursement (through the E106 or E109 forms) or to access to the French health system will be required to have their own personal health insurance until they reach UK state pension age (and therefore qualify for entitlement to the E121 form), or until they qualify as a French resident (after 5 years of "regular, uninterrupted residence"). We have ensured that the French authorities are fully aware of the specific circumstances of E106 holders already resident in France who do not have existing access to CMU and who may not be able to secure private health insurance for various reasons when their E106 expires. Following discussions to highlight the need for urgent clarification in cases where the E106 is due to expire imminently, we have been told that people will have the safeguard of essential immediate healthcare provision. We are expecting a response in the next few days from the Health Ministry to give further detail for people in these circumstances. As previously, people already over retirement age who are holders of an E121 which is registered with the French authorities will remain unaffected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 I think it's worth pointing out that régulier, as used in the French statement, means "within the rules/regulations".I other words, it means lawful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Driver Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 As things stand at the moment, only those E106ers who develop an insurance precluding illness after arriving in France could be eligible for transfer to CMU under the accident of life concession. Anyone already here with such an illness will not and therefore their inability to obtain/maintain their PHI will result in their residence status becoming irregular, therefore they will lose their right of stay.Sort of contradicts the DSS view on exisiting CMU people:Certain inactive Community nationals residing in our country currently profit from the CMU and, if necessary, CMUC.Those inactive Community nationals found themselves allotted the CMU in accordance with circular DSS/2A/DAS/DPM 2000/239 of May 3, 2000, although they should have held medical cover before their installation in France. Indeed, with regard to Community nationals who, contrary to the rights in force, profited from basic CMU at a time when the question of the regularity of their right to stay was regarded as, a priori, undisputed, to re-examine this affiliation would amount calling into question a right to stay which was de facto recognized. Prejudicial treatment of legal residents, prospects of the deportation of the infirmed - scope for a bit more political pressure on the part of HMG there, I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 The CEAM/EHIC situation is still unresolved for those who will not be able to join the CMU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJSLIV Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 If you have one half of a couple who cannot get insurance so possibly qualifying for the CMU, does the other half still have to take out private cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted December 14, 2007 Share Posted December 14, 2007 Come on SD, you know as well as I do that there is no chance of the French government deporting the infirm, especially to the UK. Pressure will be much more subtle than that unless the people concerned are also rascals in other parts of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makfai Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 [quote user="Boiling a frog"] I agree that up until a few months ago they would have thought that they could join CMU when the E106 expired and that could be seen as unfair.Just as the healthy E106 are now going to have to find private medical assurance.I can see the French Govts point tho. They do not want EU citizens who have a medical problem coming to France to benefit from the French health system,and if they had not included this condition it would have left the door open to those people..The statement will take some time to digest as will the actual circular which may make the situation slightly clearer.At least we now know the playing field and can direct attention to the E106 holders. [/quote] Agreed. What is more than a bit rich is that the changes are all traced back to immigration legislation in EU Directive 2006/38EC which sets out the criteria for residence. If the legislation is driven by control of RESIDENCE why is that not the benchmark for the 'effective date' rather than affiliation to the CMU.Secondly, on the 'effective date', how can an effective date be announced three weeks in arrears???? Effective on 23 November and announced on 14 December...bizarre in terms of legislation!I think I have finally discovered the 'Lost Patrol' of the 'Get it Wrong Brigade' ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony F Dordogne Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Makfai, the problem is applying English logic to French governmental decision making - the two may not be compatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaJ Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 I think that the other problem is that insurance companies do not necessarily refuse insurance absolutely. We have found several who would accept us (even at the regular premium for our age group) but would then limit or exclude conditions arising from a pre-condition i.e. heart attack / stroke arising from (controlled) hypertension. As I understand it we would probably have to get PHI and then go to the CMU if these conditions arose and the cover from PHI was no longer available. We have already started a business BTW.regardsLisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cat Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 [quote user="Boiling a frog"]The statement will take some time to digest as will the actual circular which may make the situation slightly clearer. [/quote]I'm not sure if the circulaire itself has actually been posted here or not, but I've just come across it, so thought I would post a direct linkhttp://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/0711123_circ_dss_cmu_ue.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Avery Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 [quote user="makfai"][ What is more than a bit rich is that the changes are all traced back to immigration legislation in EU Directive 2006/38EC which sets out the criteria for residence. A directive is a directive, national laws are national laws. EU Directives set out the aims and objectives, it is for member states to create legislation to best implement the requirements of the Directive, this takes time, typically up to two years, even longer in some instances. It also means that the fine detail of the legislation can vary from state to state whilst still meeting the objectives of the Directive.Secondly, on the 'effective date', how can an effective date be announced three weeks in arrears???? Effective on 23 November and announced on 14 December...bizarre in terms of legislation! Agreed but it seems that the main plank of this legislation was enacted by some of the CPAMs from 23 November which is why many people received reinstatement letters from that date. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 It's that bl**din' hairdresser again!http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/15/wexpat115.xmlTypical, even though I emphasised the point about 20 times, our healthcare under the state system was still "free" I notice. Humph.Get posting on the feedback, and point out that it isn't, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Avery Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Yes the free bit has really sunk any hope of sympathy if there ever was any from the warm hearted thatcherites of the Daily Torygraph......... but you can do as this ex UK civil servant has posted:My partner and myself moved to France last year but still retain a UK address for bank accounts etc. I looked into going into the French healthcare scheme as I am 49 and retired with a UK Government pension so am not in the French social system ......... Oh well that's OK then.What planet do these people live on? I know the one that says about obeying the laws of your host nation up Uranus [:P]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chas Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 [quote user="cooperlola"]Get posting on the feedback, and point out that it isn't, please![/quote] Already posted, but there are quite a few of uninformed responses there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Driver Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 The Telegraph's 'free' bit is not really an issue - it's free in that you don't pay cotisations with an E106, but having to qualify this by explaining the workings of the state reimbursment structure and the associated mutuelle system would just send everyone to sleep....We are never going to get any sympathy from the UK general public, because it's doesn't personally concern them - to them, we're just a small group of middle-class well-off early retirees who abandoned their country to sip G & Ts in the sun . How many of us have watched those Trevor McDonald type programmes about the plight of Brits in Spain who've been caught out by the health system there and shook our heads in amazement at their apparent ignorance of the local regulations?The issue of immigrant entitlement to NHS treatment has always been a point of contention amongst a significant part of the UK population and our plight just gives them the trigger to regurgitate their views.The people that matter know what's what, so it's not really worth getting upset over.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali-cat Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 [quote user="Ron Avery"][quote user="makfai"][ A directive is a directive, national laws are national laws. EU Directives set out the aims and objectives, it is for member states to create legislation to best implement the requirements of the Directive, this takes time, typically up to two years, even longer in some instances. It also means that the fine detail of the legislation can vary from state to state whilst still meeting the objectives of the Directive.[/quote][/quote]All very true Ron. Except the objectives of this Directive were to "simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens".The latest statement that provides relief only for those whose illness was 'unforeseen at the time of relocation" effectively means stay in your own country if you are ill and/or disabled, never mind how it will be interpreted for those already here. I would like to believe that this wasn't the intention when the Directive was drafted.Mr Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Avery Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 .......Except the objectives of this Directive were to "simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens".Many of those posters to the Telegraph website would no dobt argue that "stay in your own country if you are ill and/or disabled", simplifies the rights of residence as far as the UK is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugsy Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Wow, reading those feed-backs, it's surprising the level of quite vitreolic comments being made against us (people who have moved to france). I did not realise just how much jealousy existed towards us.speaking generally, of course.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Driver Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 [quote user="Bugbear"]Wow, reading those feed-backs, it's surprising the level of quite vitreolic comments being made against us (people who have moved to france). I did not realise just how much jealousy existed towards us.speaking generally, of course.[:)][/quote]Not jealousy, Gary - it just gives them a platform to rant about foreigners coming to their country and getting the free healthcare that they've paid for through their taxes all their life....We are just the catalyst....[;-)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Driver Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 [quote user="cooperlola"]"They also completly removed the positive aspects of the changes which were reflected in your fuller quote. It's called the dumbing down of the British media. I am going to have to write another piece just to clear this mess up. [/quote]Since when did a happy ending get in the way of a good story about personal tragedy....[:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makfai Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 [quote user="Ron Avery"][quote user="makfai"][ What is more than a bit rich is that the changes are all traced back to immigration legislation in EU Directive 2006/38EC which sets out the criteria for residence. A directive is a directive, national laws are national laws. EU Directives set out the aims and objectives, it is for member states to create legislation to best implement the requirements of the Directive, this takes time, typically up to two years, even longer in some instances. It also means that the fine detail of the legislation can vary from state to state whilst still meeting the objectives of the Directive.Secondly, on the 'effective date', how can an effective date be announced three weeks in arrears???? Effective on 23 November and announced on 14 December...bizarre in terms of legislation! Agreed but it seems that the main plank of this legislation was enacted by some of the CPAMs from 23 November which is why many people received reinstatement letters from that date. [/quote][/quote]National laws are, of course, national laws but in some cases (this one) national laws are subject to EU Directives etc. It is illogical to quote a Directive on residence then set a benchmark on the basis of affiliation to an administrative body and not residence.As regards the 'this takes time' comment, the preparation of Directives is not done in a vacuum. EU States know exactly what is coming as they have been involved in the preparation. They consult internally to see what the implications are for their own state. They have plenty of time to prepare The Directive also REQUIRED pre-publicity. Didn't they have time for that? If they had put it out in advance then feedback could have been given before implementation. The fact that we are seeing what we are seeing now shows that inadequate consideration was given to the implications both while the Directive was at the consultation stage and between its publication and the publication of French legislationAs regards the 'effective date' do you not think that the E106 holders losing cover in January should have been considered in this regard? I note the Brit Embassy statement that something is being planned but my whole point on this is all this could have been sorted out a long time ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makfai Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 [quote user="Bugbear"]Wow, reading those feed-backs, it's surprising the level of quite vitreolic comments being made against us (people who have moved to france). I did not realise just how much jealousy existed towards us.speaking generally, of course.[:)][/quote]I think there are some residents of France who may harbour similar views for 'potential' residents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 Temporarily deleted while I try to get it to fit! 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