Lobbying !

[ali-cat]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

A long way to go yes, but momentum is building.  The problem is that the UK MEPs on their own (even if all sign) are nowhere near enough for a majority, but the promising thing about yesterday is the increase in the different countries represented - and thus the numbers grow.

We'd really like to find a few people who speak other European languages, who might be able to see if this is a hot topic on other fora like ours for nationals of other EU countries.  Because if they could lobby their MEPs too this would have a chance.  It may seem a long shot but it really would go most of the way to solving not only the problems of those who already live here, but those who are planning to come too. (Although I guess there'll be one or two who'd think that wasn't a good thing!!![Www])

[/quote]

Perhaps, rather than trying to persuade individual MEPs to sign up,  it might be more effective to lobby each of the main political groupings in the European Parliament :

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/groups/default_en.htm

Mr Cat

 

[cooperlola]

Brando, I know this is very frustrating!  It is for everybody.  However, the CPAMs have yet to have been properly  informed about the way to deal with those who comply with the "5 year rule" (which does indeed exist and is EU law).  We continue to ask for clarification to be sent to local offices, but the social security department tells us to wait, as a new set of rules will be sent out "shortly". This should have happened last month but some sort of negotiation is still going on.  Our suspicion is that it's in fact how those with pre-existing and chronic conditions will be treated, and about how those already in the CMU who have not yet been here for the requisite 5 years, will be dealt with also.  No matter whom we ask about this, the reply is the same - a big fat refusal to comment.

Please visit our website, where you will find a pro-forma letter in French which your friends can send to their local CPAM, contesting the decision against them, on legal grounds.

http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/lobbying/lobbying_letters_6.htm

They should continue to argue their case, and push the British Government and the European parliament, to make the FG comply with EU law.  We are pretty confident that the outcome will be good, but we cannot confirm this beyond what I say above.

The Europe minister is in Paris today, in top level negotiations with the French authorities on just this subject, so we await the outcome.  Do not despair, it is not over yet by any means and if anybody is going to get relief here, it will be the 5-year plus residents (assuming - and I'm sure this is true for your friends - that they have paid all their taxes etc as they legally should).

[cooperlola]

Mr Cat, I understand that one of yesterday's signers is a very influential and highly respected Cypriot MEP - considered a major coup by the Honeyball camp.

Yes, good idea - more work!![:D]

[Brando]

Thanks, Cooperlola, for your comments.

Our friends have already done all that you recommend. They must now plan their lives around what they have been given officially. They cannot await the possible outcome of suspicion or confidence.

Returning to the 5-year rule issue, if a non-French EU citizen were to be given official permanent residence status after 5 years then, I assume, he would be given the same treatment as a French citizen. Are French citizens who decide to retire before the official retirement age going to be required to purchase private medical cover? In this case I cannot see that a non-French person in similar circumstances is going to be treated differently.

[cooperlola]

Brando, just take care that your friends do not commit themselves to huge insurance premiums and then find that the French comply with the law!  They have until the end of March to comply so should not be shoved into anything unnecessarily.  Exclusive have a plan called "gateway" which you can cancel at short notice - that may be the kind of route which it is best to go down during the waiting period.

No, French nationals are not obliged to get private healthcare when in the same situation - that is the point!  Neither in fact are non-EU nationals, bizzarely enough (although they have many other hoops to jump through in order to be allowed residency).  Humph.  However, there is not a huge percentage of French nationals in the CMU as the majority is covered by work-related schemes.  All that has happened to them so far is that their companies (not the individuals) are being asked to pay huge premiums to allow staff to retire early.

[Boiling a frog]

The only 5 year rule is that the French legislation as well as the EU legislation states that after 5 years of regular uninterupted residence you no longer have to have sufficient resources so as not to be a burden on the state and medical assurance.

Article L121-1 states

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 

Articlwe L122-1

Sauf si sa présence constitue une menace pour l'ordre public, le ressortissant visé à l'article L. 121-1 qui a résidé de manière légale et ininterrompue en France pendant les cinq années précédentes acquiert un droit au séjour permanent sur l'ensemble du territoire français.

This has been taken to mean by many people ( but not officially by the French authorities) that after 5 years one can rejoin the CMU.

At the moment the only official announcement,therefor not a rumour,is that everyone who does not have an E106 or E121 who presently are paying for health care via CMU will have to find private medical cover after 31st March 2008.

Things may change but that is the position at this moment in time.

CPAM are following the rules issued by the Securite Sociale

Your friends can always contest the decision and follow the route

Contester une décision d'ordre administratif

Pour contester une décision d'ordre administratif (par exemple : un refus de remboursement de soins ou de versement d'indemnités journalières), vous devez tout d'abord saisir la Commission de recours amiable (C.R.A.) de votre caisse d'Assurance Maladie.
Si votre demande est rejetée, vous pourrez ensuite engager une procédure auprès du Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale (T.A.S.S.).
En dernier ressort, vous pourrez faire appel auprès de la cour d'appel et/ou vous pourvoir devant la Cour de cassation.

 

La Commission de recours amiable (C.R.A.)

Vous voulez contester une décision d'ordre administratif prise par votre caisse d'Assurance Maladie ? Il peut s'agir, par exemple, d'un refus de votre caisse d'Assurance Maladie de vous rembourser des soins ou de vous verser des indemnités journalières.
Vous devez tout d'abord saisir la Commission de recours amiable (C.R.A.) de votre caisse d'Assurance Maladie. La procédure et simple et gratuite.

A noter : vous pouvez également saisir la C.R.A. si le litige concerne l'application faite par votre caisse d'Assurance Maladie des conclusions d'une expertise médicale.

Comment saisir la C.R.A. dans quel délai ?

Adressez votre demande par simple lettre à la C.R.A. de votre caisse d'Assurance Maladie, dans un délai de 2 mois à compter de la date de la notification de la décision que vous contestez.

La décision de la C.R.A.

La C.R.A. statue sur pièces ; vous ne serez pas convoqué, mais la décision de la caisse vous sera notifiée par courrier, qui mentionnera les voies et délais de recours.

Les voies de recours

Si la C.R.A. rejette votre demande, vous pouvez, dans un délai de 2 mois à compter de la date de sa notification, saisir le Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale (T.A.S.S.).

A noter que l'absence de réponse de la C.R.A. dans le délai d'1 mois à compter de la réception de votre demande signifie que votre demande est rejetée. A l'expiration de ce délai, vous disposez d'un délai de 2 mois pour saisir le T.A.S.S.

 

Le Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale (T.A.S.S.)

Vous pouvez contester auprès du Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale (T.A.S.S.) toute décision prise par la Commission de recours amiable (C.R.A.).
Le T.A.S.S. compétent est, en principe, celui dont dépend votre domicile et il se trouve au siège du Tribunal de grande instance (T.G.I.).

Comment saisir le T.A.S.S. et dans quel délai ?

Adressez votre demande par lettre recommandée au secrétaire du T.A.S.S. dont l'adresse figure sur la notification de la décision de la C.R.A. que vous contestez, ou déposez la à son secrétariat, dans un délai de 2 mois :
> à compter de la date de la notification de la décision de la C.R.A. que vous contestez ;
> ou, en l'absence de réponse de la C.R.A., à compter de l'expiration du délai d'1 mois dont elle disposait pour répondre à votre réclamation.

La décision du tribunal

Vous serez convoqué pour audience par le T.A.S.S., par lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception, 15 jours au moins avant la date de l'audience.
Lors de l'audience, vous pouvez comparaître vous-même, ou vous faire représenter ou assister par un avocat, ou un salarié exerçant la même profession, ou un représentant syndical, ou votre conjoint, ou un ascendant ou descendant en ligne directe.
La décision du T.A.S.S. vous sera notifiée par lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception.

Les voies de recours

Si la décision du T.A.S.S. ne vous satisfait pas, vous pouvez faire appel auprès de la cour d'appel et/ou vous pourvoir devant la Cour de cassation selon les modalités suivantes :

> Lorsque la décision du T.A.S.S. est rendue en dernier ressort (c'est le cas pour les litiges portant sur un montant inférieur à 4 000 €) ;vous pouvez saisir la Cour de cassation, dans un délai de 2 mois à compter de la date de notification du T.A.S.S.

> Lorsque la décision du T.A.S.S. est rendue en premier ressort (c'est le cas pour les litiges portant sur un montant supérieur à 4 000 € ou lorsque le montant est indéterminé), vous pouvez faire appel devant la chambre sociale de la cour d'appel, dans un délai d'1 mois à compter de la date de notification du T.A.S.S. ; puis, si l'arrêt de la cour d'appel ne vous satisfait pas, vous pourrez saisir la Cour de cassation, dans un délai de 2 mois à compter de la date de notification de la cour d'appel.

[Will]

Regarding the 5-year rule, I posted yesterday in the 'Health Care Providers' topic about an assurance agency in Dinan that says in its advertising that those who have been in France for 5 years or more will continue to enjoy (if that's the right word) CMU cover. Not saying that is a definitive statement of course, but it might be worth following up with the company for those who have been in France for over 5 years and feel they may need their own assurance. You might learn the source of their information...

[makfai]

Jeremy Vine is asking for comments for his programme today...let's give him some!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/

[Mrs B]

I got this email today from John Bowis MEP, Conservative Spokesman on Health Issues, in response to my reply to my MEP Syed Kamall:

There is no breach of EU law.  There is of course a human problem, which is why some of us have signed the WD.  But essentially it is a matter for the French Government - after all they choose to live there, rather than in their own country - and it is also a matter for the British Government who should be protecting the interests of their citizens abroad.  That is why the UK Conservative Party at Westminster has been gunning for Labour Ministers and not the European Commission!

[makfai]

[quote user="Puzzled"][quote user="Mrs B"]

I got this email today from John Bowis MEP, Conservative Spokesman on Health Issues, in response to my reply to my MEP Syed Kamall:

There is no breach of EU law.  There is of course a human problem, which is why some of us have signed the WD.  But essentially it is a matter for the French Government - after all they choose to live there, rather than in their own country - and it is also a matter for the British Government who should be protecting the interests of their citizens abroad.  That is why the UK Conservative Party at Westminster has been gunning for Labour Ministers and not the European Commission!

[/quote]

Unleash the hounds, Makfai ![:@]

[/quote]

You may be interested in the following.

EMAIL TO CONS ABROAD COPIED TO DAVID CAMERON; CHAIRMAN OF CON PARTY; & JIM MURPHY (just to be mischevious!)

From: ................

To:

Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:05 AM

Subject: Letters from Conservative MEPs

Mr Rutt

 

I am sorry your party cannot do anything for Keith and Dorothy.

 

Returning to my original reason for writing, I have just been informed that the incorrect information is still being sent out. Syed Kamall MEP has recently replied to a voter in the same terms as sent by Sir Robert Atkins. 

 

At the same time as this letter is further reinforcing the view of a 'pro forma' reply having been adopted it is equally reinforcing the fact that the Conservative Party is

• failing to understand the issues and/or

• ignoring the issues and/or

• misrepresenting the issues.

Whatever the correct answer is, the fact that the attention of the Conservative Party has been drawn to the errors in its correspondence and is still maintaining the same stance is becoming more widely known among voters abroad and at home.  It is the subject of open comment in internet forums.

 

It would be useful, if damage to the reputation of the Party is to be avoided, if someone within the party could review the content of the letters being despatched.

 

I have attached another copy of the short brief I have previously sent you.  You may also find it useful to view the website at www.frenchhealthissues.eu. I am not a member of this group but the site does contain a lot of valuable and accurate information.

 

 

Regards

The brief I attached is available at http://frenchhealthissues.eu/lobbying/lobbying_letters_11.htm

 

[cooperlola]

More "they get it all free" rubbish!  Let's get some more rubutals in, chaps and chapesses!

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1807322007

Grrr...[:@]

[Glyn]

John Bowis MEP wrote 'There is of course a human problem, which is why some of us have signed the WD'.

However I cannot see his name on the list of those that have signed. Surely he wouldn't be telling a fib would he?[Www]

[cooperlola]

And yet another report suggesting we want free healthcare! [:@]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/11/15/wfrance115a.xml

Come along, lobbyers, get writing to them and putting them right.  A full mailbag will keep our story in the headlines and might even improve the standard of reporting!  Yeah, yeah, I know, in my dreams....[Www]

[Mrs B]

I went back to John Bowis to asked if he had signed the Written Declaration and here is his response:

Yes I have - and shall do everything I can to persuade the British Government to accept its responsibilities in this area.  As I say, it is a UK, France and bilateral issue and they must not hide behind the (ineffectual) method of written declarations in the European Parliament rather than take action with the French Government.

Best wishes.

John Bowis

[Cat]

Seems that NARPO (National Association of Retired Police Officers) is now backing the campaign as well

http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/opinion-former-index/health/narpo-french-national-health-care-system-$481664.htm

[cooperlola]

One of my French MEPs (Bernard Poignant) has just written to me to say that he will sign the Honeyball declaration.  He has also sent me a copy of a letter to the French health minister - intervening on our behalf.

[cooperlola]

For info : A quick translation of the letter from M. Poignant to the French Health minister

I draw your attention to the situation for foreign residents who live in France and who, from now on will not longer be covered by the CMU.

 

It seems that in this respect you have taken a decision to ask all inactive foreign EU residents in France, to leave the state health insurance system, and to find private cover.  This seems to me to be unjust, particularly considering that this has been done retrospectively.  In effect, the government of which you are a part, has decided to refuse access to the CMU to newcomers, but also to those who have paid cotisations for some years.  Those who already have serious illnesses and who are undergoing treatment must therefore find private cover before the end of March 2008, something which is impossible, as private insurance companies will not cover people with pre-existing conditions.

 

According to the information in my possession, it seems that you have applied a 2004 directive, which insists that pre retired foreign nationals must have insurance and must not be an unreasonable burden on the member state.  But, the majority of the pre-retired contribute to the CMU and are not “a burden” to the state.  What is more, up until now, they were considered illegal if they had private insurance and did not contribute to the CMU.  Many cancelled their existing private insurance for this reason, and can not take it out again now.

 

This situation seems to me to be totally contrary to the principal of free movement within member states, and against the reciprocity of healthcare.  This seems to me also to be discriminatory on the grounds of nationality.

 

Bearing all the above in mind, it seems to me that you must consider reversing this decision."

 

It seems to be that it would be good if some of our own MEPs had such a firm grasp of the situation!

 

[Clair]

Very much to the point and, coming from a French MEP, will hopefully have that much more impact...

Well done Coops and friends! [:D]

[Joshua]

I’ve today received a letter of support from Chris Davies

MEP.

I’ve known Chris since the early nineties and this guy is a

heavyweight when it comes to the interpretation of law and legislation. He also

has the knack of asking the right questions. He’s a real Peoples Champion

Changes to French Healthcare and Non-French EU Citizens

 

He’s signed and gives his support to the declaration

submitted by Bill Newton-Dunn MEP and Mary Honeyball MEP

 Extracts from his letter which I find most interesting and

which have lifted my spirit include.

“recent reports of a further potential change in the policy

that would allow “inactive” EU Retirees to maintain their rights as per the

previous arrangements with the CMU”

“MEP’s have asked the Commission to investigate as to

whether this policy infringes the relevant European law on the basis of its

discriminating against EU Citizens of other nationalities”

“The Commission have confirmed to MEP’s that it will contact

the French authorities with a view to obtaining detailed information about the

legislation and that it shall examine its compatibility with EU law”

“Directive 2004/38/EC states that EU citizens shall enjoy

equal treatment with the nationals of that State, insomuch as within the scope

of the Treaty’s which form the basis of EU law”

“I shall continue to back calls to ensure that “inactive” EU

citizens are not discriminated against by French government policy and welcome

reports of a change in favour of the restoration of rights to those citizens”

Chris Davies also makes the point that “we should continue

lobbying French MEP’s and MP’s”

Joshua, with something to smile about now [:D]

[cooperlola]

Great stuff, Joshua.  This is a heavyweight whose support we could really do with.  There are now 59 signers and two months or so to go (but with the usual break for Christmas).

Adamou, Allister, Atkins, Aylward, Baco, Belohorská, Birutis, Buşoi,
Cabrnoch, Casaca, Chichester, Corda, Degutis, De Rossa, Dičkutė,
Dover, Duff, Fernandes, Ford, Gierek, de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Hall, Hamon,
Higgins, Honeyball, Hughes, in 't Veld, Janowski, Juknevičienė,
Kinnock, Koch, Kozlík, Libicki, Lucas, Lynne, McAvan, Meijer, Moraes,
Neris, Newton Dunn, Nicholson, Novak, Oomen-Ruijten, Oviir, Paparizov,
Patriciello, Pīks, Şerbu, Simpson, Skottová, Staes, Sturdy,
Sumberg, Titley, Tomaszewska, Vlasák, Watson, Willmott, ZimmerSigned/signé
by/par  (59) members/députés:

This does not include several more who have made promises. 

Now that we have begun to make tiny inroads into the French MEPs - let's get writing to them again.  M. Poignant responded to my appeal to his socialists instincts! - this could be a good approach to the "lefties" in your own area.  We will publish a copy of my letter to him on the site shortly so that you can "borrow" bits from it if you wish.

[Glyn]

Its interesting to note that both John Bowis and Richard Ashworth, Conservative MEP's who have that they either have or wer going to sign, do not yet appear on the list. Perhaps they signed the wrong one[:)]

[seb47]

"We will publish a copy of my letter to him on the site shortly so that you can "borrow" bits from it if you wish."

Ready and waiting Coops.

We were very proud of you and the other contributors on the JV show yesterday (with one obvious exception!). Such a shame they didn't give you the opportunity to correct the ill-informed views reflected in the 'numpty' text and e-mail responses. 

[cooperlola]

A sneak preview, Sue!

Cher(e) Monsieur/Madame

 

Étant résident britannique en France et un de vos mandants, je vous exhorte à revoir le récente interprétation de la directive européenne 2004/38 qui vise à changee la réglementation de notre droit de résidence en France et qui est utilisée pour exclure les ressortissants européens non-français de la CMU.

 

http://www.securite-sociale.fr:80/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm

 

Je comprends parfaitement que cela puisse paraître à première vue comme étant un problème relativement mineur qui ne semble affecter qu'un nombre faible d'étrangers expatriés, mais je crois que ce changement a des implications beaucoup plus larges, liées à l'agenda du nouveau président de la république et à son attitude à l'égard des "pré-retraités" en général, et pas seulement ceux d'autres nationalités.

 

Ce qui se passe, comme vous le savez sans doute, est que les pré-retraités qui ne sont pas couverts par une attestation E106 ou E121, sont requis de s'affilier à  une assurance maladie privée au cours des prochains mois. Pour les personnes aisées et celles en bonne santé, cela ne posera probablement aucun problème. Une assurance médicale privée leur coûtera peu plus cher que les 8% de leur revenu mondial, qu'ils contribuent actuellement à la CMU en plus du coût de leur mutuelle. Cependant, pour tous ceux atteints d'une maladie chronique ou d'une condition médicale pré-existante (ceux sous dialyse, ayant un cancer en cours de traitement, ou ceux souffrant de diabète, d'asthme et d'hypertension artérielle), aucune assurance médicale privée ne sera disponible, sauf à un coût énorme, et pour les plus pauvres, une assurance médicale privée est financièrement hors de portée.

En tant que parlementaire situé à gauche de l'éventail politique, pensez-vous que cela soit juste? Cela ne va-t-il pas directement à l'encontre du principe d'une assurance maladie universelle accessible à tous, indépendamment de leur situation? Et l'incidence de cette mesure ne touche-t-elle pas beaucoup plus les pauvres et les malades que les riches et les bien-portants? Cette mesure n'est-elle pas discriminatoire quand elle ne cible que les ressortissants non-Français? Croyez-vous qu'elle soit juste? Ou le fait qu'elle empêche la libre circulation entre les Etats membres de tous les citoyens de l'UE - sûrement l'un des principes piliers de l'Union Européenne?

 

Pour l'instant, seuls les citoyens non-Français de l'Union Européenne sont touchés, mais s'agit-il d'une première étape avant que la couverture maladie universelle ne soit  également retirée aux ressortissants français? De nombreux ressortissants britanniques qui se sont établis en France ne sont des "pré-retraités" que parce que leur employeur au Royaume-Uni leur permet de prendre une retraite anticipée; ils ont servi dans les forces armées, ils sont anciens policiers, fonctionnaires, cheminots et autres, ils ont travaillé toute leur vie, souvent dans la fonction publique, tout comme ceux qui sont également ciblés en France aujourd'hui. Il faut aussi savoir qu'un certain nombre d'entre eux n'auront pris une retraite anticipée qu'après avoir été licenciés économiquement ou après avoir subi une discrimination à l'égard des travailleurs âgés.

 

 

 

Je vous exhorte à soutenir la lutte contre cette législation discriminatoire. Vos collègues du Parlement européen, Mary Honeyball, Bill Newton Dunn et Proinsais De Rossa ont soumis une déclaration écrite au parlement de l'UE

http://www.frenchhealthissues.eu/more_info/marys_declaration.htm

 

Je vous appelle à la signer, dans la lutte contre l'érosion des droits de vos mandants - en particulier ceux qui sont le moins en mesure de subvenir à leurs besoins - et à raffermir le principe de libre circulation de toutes les personnes à travers l'Union Européenne.

 

Veuillez agreer l’expression de mes sentiments les meilleurs,

 

 

[Caussenarde]

[quote user="cooperlola"]One of my French MEPs (Bernard Poignant) has just written to me to say that he will sign the Honeyball declaration.  He has also sent me a copy of a letter to the French health minister - intervening on our behalf.[/quote]

Well done...  this is good news.  At last a step forward for all involved, in engaging the authorities that really matter i.e. the French ones!  And in clear and accurate terms too.  Could you post Bernard Poignant's letter in French please? 

[cooperlola]

Not without typing it out as it is a letter, not an e-mail.  If you (or anybody else) would like to see it, please e-mail me and I can send you a jpeg scan.