Lobbying !

[seb47]

I'm all set to post letters tomorrow to the following Socialist euro MEPs (as listed on page 1 of this thread):-

Kader Arif; Francoise Castex; Robert Navarro; Beatrice Patrie.

Does anyone in the south west have knowledge of any other people on that list who might be willing to listen?

[seb47]

Come on south west - 2 months to go and approx 300 signatures needed but it is fast becoming possible with French Socialist support.

Anyone got an addres for Segoline Royale?

[Clair]

[quote user="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.[/quote]

Bernard Poignant's letter to the French Health Minister:

5 novembre 2007

Madame la Ministre

J'ai l'honneur d'attirer votre

attention sur la situation de résidents étrangers qui

habitent en France et qui, d'ici peu ne seront plus couverts par la

couverture maladie universelle.

Il semble à cet égard que

vous ayez pris la décision de demander à tous les

étrangers inactifs en France de sortit du système

d'assurance santé d'Etat et de trouver une assurance privée.

Cela me semble injuste y compris si cela est appliqué de

manière rétrospective. En effet, le gouvernement dont

vous faites partie a décidé de refuser l'accès à

la CMU aux nouveaux venus, amis aussi à ceux qui ont cotisé

pendant des années. Ceux qui sont atteints de maladies graves

et qui sont en cours de traitement doivent ainsi trouver une

assurance privée avant fin mars 2008, ce qui est impossible,

les companies d'assurance n'assurant pas les personnes avec de graves

maladies préexistantes.

D'après les informations en ma

possession, il semble que vous appliquez une directive de 2004, aui

précise que les étrangers inactifs doivent posséder

une assurance, et ne pas devenir une charge déraisonnable pour

l'Etat. Or, la plupart des étrangers inactifs en Fracne

cotisent à la CMU et ne sont pas « une charge »

pour l'Etat. En plus, jusqu'à maintenant, il est considéré

comme illégal d'avoir une assurance maladie privée et

cotiser à la CMU. Beaucoup ont même annulé une

assurance privée existante, qui aurait pu leur servir

maintenant.

Cette situation me paraît surtout

porter atteinte au principe de la libre circulation en Europe, et à

la réciprocité des soins. De plus, les étrangers

qui cotisent à la CMU seront traités différemment.

Cela me paraît être également une atteinte au

principe de non discrimination en égard à la

nationalité.

Compte tenu de cette situation, il me

semble que vous devriez revoir cette décision.

Restant à votre disposition.

[...]

Bernard Poignant

[Helen]

[quote user="seb47"]

 

Anyone got an addres for Segoline Royale?[/quote]

http://www.desirsdavenir.org/index.php but I can't see anyway of writing directly.

edited to add some more addresses I found.

http://www.parti-socialiste.fr/ contact us + local party contacts and websites

http://www.d-s-f.net/article/archive/1412 parti socialiste MEPS if you click on the individual members names you get their biography and address

[Mrs B]

I found this today on  http://www.medecinsdumonde.org/

Avec la publication en 1995 des "Dix propositions pour l'accès aux soins pour tous", Médecins du Monde réaffirme la priorité des soins avant tout examen administratif, qu'il s'agisse de personnes sans couverture sociale ou d'étrangers résidant durablement sur le territoire français, bloqués par le contrôle de leurs papiers. Cette idée est reprise en 1999 lors de la mise en place de la Couverture maladie universelle (CMU).

I have emailed them to check if they are aware that access to the CMU is being withdrawn from some of us and what advice or help they can give.

[Helen]

Mrs B

It will be interesting to read their response. They certainly are aware of changes giving reasons for them ( I've often wondered if the original targets were people from the new EU countries)

 

L’entrée de la Roumanie dans l’Union Européenne aura même été à l’origine d’un nouveau texte de loi qui écarte TOUS les européens en recherche de travail, voire inactifs, de la couverture maladie universelle.

Il faut arrêter de se servir de boucs émissaires pour expliquer pourquoi l’un des pays les plus riches du monde arrive si peu à atteindre l’un des trois principes de sa devise, l’égalité : ce ne sont de toute évidence ni les Rroms, ni les « sans-papiers » qui sont responsables du déficit de la sécurité sociale. En revanche, ils en sont devenus les premières victimes.

[seb47]

Given the current anxiety re the E106 position, it's still worth posting on the Conservatives Abroad blog. There are only 2 messages on there at the moment.

[makfai]

As can be seen here the people at CPAM level are concerned about how complex the situation is likely to become if the proposed new rules are introduced.  It may be useful, therefore, to ensure that the local CPAM staff are also aware both of the increase in workload and of the other ramifications of excluding E106 holders.

I have drafted a text (below) which people can draw on if they wish to write to their local CPAM or. indeed, others concerned with this matter.  Clearly the CPAM staff are influencing events at Ministerial level so it would be useful to ensure that we have made the point with as many of them as possible of the effects of excluding E106 holders

The French Government has indicated that it is considering a change in its policy to exclude some existing residents from the need to seek private healthcare.  

However, there are concerns that the criterion to be adopted will be that a person must have become affiliated to the CMU on or before an effective date (30 September 2007?).  Whilst this would be a welcome relief to many it would create a serious inequality which will certainly be challenged. 

It would be useful if this inequality could be addressed before the announcement was made. If the criterion is to be based on affiliation to the CMU and not residence then those resident in France on ‘E’ forms (e.g. E106; 121; 109) will not be included. Once the cover of their ‘E’ form becomes invalid (e.g. E106 expires or E121 eligibility on incapacity grounds is lost) then those residents would have to seek commercial health insurance.  This could create a situation where, for example, a person resident in France for two-and-a-half years on an E106 would not be entitled to French state healthcare while someone who had not qualified for an E106 because of inadequate UK National Insurance contributions and had only arrived in France in the autumn of 2007 and had then affiliated to the CMU on or before 30 September 2007 would be entitled to state healthcare. This would be inequitable.

 The remedy to this would be to persuade the French Government that the criterion should be based on RESIDENCE in France on or before the effective date (30 September 2007?) and not affiliation to the CMU.

This would not only be equitable but logical as the French 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’

and

• the original EU Directive 2004/38EC

are all RESIDENCE related legislation and not ‘healthcare’ legislation. It is, therefore, more logical to create a criterion based on residence rather than access to ‘healthcare’.

 It is also felt that the exclusion of E106 holders would lead to a significant administrative burden on CPAMs.  Each E106 holder would be entitled to appeal and, having nothing to lose, could be expected to do so.  This would be burdensome on staff in local CPAMs and throughout the appeal system.  Staff would have to deal with more cases than they currently have to deal with and those cases would be more complex because of the appeal aspects.  These factors may necessitate an increase in staffing levels which would create a greater burden on the taxpayer.  If increases in staff levels were not approved, then the workload of existing staff would certainly increase.

 In addition, if the exclusion of E106 holders was successfully appealed at EU level – a likely outcome - then all this extra work done by the CPAM etc staff would have been for nothing BUT would then have to be corrected for every case.  This could lead to claims for reimbursement of fees paid to commercial insurers or for compensation for those who felt that they had been compelled to give up residence in France.  This financial burden would have to be met by the taxpayer.

In summary, the exclusion of E 106 holders who are already resident in France seems to be of no benefit on financial grounds and as French taxpayers we do not support that policy. 

As residents of France we also believe that the decision to exclude such E106 holders is wrong in principle and is very likely to be overturned once legally challenged.

 

 

[Deimos]

What about a version in French for those of us who do not write (or

speak) French as well as would be required to translate the letter

(without radically changing its meaning - if I translated it would

probably turn out to be a letter voting from more tulip imports from

Iran).

Ian

[Lenht1951]

Hi Diemos

just Babelfished it translated back to English and it appears to make sense...I Hope...Anyone can correct if wished [:D]

 

Le gouvernement français a indiqué qu'il considère un changement de sa politique exclure quelques résidants existants de la nécessité de chercher des soins de santé privés.

Cependant, il y a des soucis que le critère à adopter sera qu'une personne doit être devenue filiale au CMU ou avant une date efficace (30 septembre 2007 ?). Tandis que ce serait un soulagement bienvenu à beaucoup il créerait une inégalité sérieuse qui sera certainement défiée.

 Il serait utile si cette inégalité pourrait être adressée avant que l'annonce ait été faite. Si le critère doit être basé sur l'affiliation au CMU et pas à la résidence puis ces résidant en France sur formes du ` E les '(par exemple E106 ; 121 ; 109) ne sera pas inclus. Une fois la couverture de leur forme du ` E 'devient inadmissible (par exemple E106 expire ou l'acceptabilité E121 pour des au sol d'incapacité est perdue) alors ces résidants devrait chercher l'assurance médicale maladie commerciale. Ceci pourrait créer une situation où, par exemple, un résidant de personne en France pendant des années de deux-et-un-moitié sur un E106 ne aurait pas droit aux soins de santé français d'état tandis que quelqu'un sur qui n'avait pas qualifié pour un E106 en raison des contributions BRITANNIQUES insatisfaisantes d'assurance nationale et était seulement arrivé en France en automne de 2007 et a eu alors filiale au CMU ou avant 30 septembre 2007 serait autorisé à énoncer des soins de santé.

Ce serait injuste. Le remède à ceci devrait persuader le gouvernement français que le critère devrait être basé sur la RÉSIDENCE en France ou avant la date efficace (30 septembre 2007 ?) et pas affiliation au CMU.

 

 Ce serait non seulement équitable mais logique comme législation française `

 

 LOI aucuns l'immigration de à de parent du juillet 2006 de 2006-911 du 24 et l'intégration

 

de à 'et

 

le n° 2007-371 du 21 de Décret de ` trouble l'européenne 2007 d'au droit de séjour en France des citoyens de l'Union de relatif, le économique de l'Espace de à de parties d'Etats d'autres de DES de ressortissants de DES européen et le famille de des membres de leur de que d'ainsi de suisse de de la Confédération

'et

 

l'EU original 2004/38EC directif

 

sont toute la législation reliée par RÉSIDENCE et législation pas de ` de soins de santé '. Il est, donc, plus logique pour créer un critère basé sur la résidence plutôt qu'accédez aux soins de santé de ` '.

 

On l'estime également que l'exclusion des supports E106 mènerait à un fardeau administratif significatif sur CPAMs. Chaque support E106 serait autorisé à en appeler et, n'ayant rien à perdre, a pu être prévu pour faire ainsi. Ce serait onéreux sur le personnel dans CPAMs local et dans tout le système d'appel. Le personnel devrait traiter plus de cas qu'ils actuellement doivent traiter et ces cas seraient plus complexes en raison des aspects d'appel. Ces facteurs peuvent rendre nécessaire une augmentation des niveaux fournissants de personnel qui créeraient un plus grand fardeau sur le contribuable. Si les augmentations des niveaux de personnel n'étaient pas approuvées, alors la charge de travail du personnel existant augmenterait certainement.

En outre, si l'exclusion des supports E106 était avec succès en appelée au niveau d'EU - des résultats probables - puis tous ce travail supplémentaire effectués par le personnel de CPAM etc.. aurait été pour rien MAIS puis devrait être corrigé pour chaque cas. Ceci pourrait mener aux réclamations pour le remboursement des honoraires payés aux assureurs commerciaux ou pour la compensation ceux qui ont estimé qu'ils avaient été obligés pour renoncer à la résidence en France. Ce fardeau financier devrait être rencontré par le contribuable.

En résumé, l'exclusion des supports de E 106 qui sont déjà résidents en France semble être sans avantage sur les raisons et car français les contribuables financiers que nous ne soutenons pas cette politique.

Car les résidants de la France que nous croyons également que la décision pour exclure de tels supports E106 est erronée en principe et est très pour être retournée une fois légalement avons défié.

 

[Ron Avery]

Mafkai

It was good of you to draft this letter but it has two flaws, one it is in English (and a bit long) and so it will be ignored by 90% of CPAM staff who you mistakenly in my opinion believe actually care what happens. 

Secondly,  it could lead to the concessions that is widely believed may be given to those already in the CMU being withdrawn.

If it is inequitable for those currently on E forms to be excluded from the CMU whilst those who had E106s or didn't qualify may be allowed to continue in the CMU aren't you risking the inequality being balanced by them doing what they originally intended and kicking everybody out?

[cooperlola]

FHI is currently working on various options as to what to do next, including Makfai's- we are certainly very aware of the point which Ron makes. We will keep you posted on the site but should have some ideas in place by Monday at the lastest. 

New insider info today suggests that the balance at the moment is "very delicate" so certainly one does not want this to result in any retrograde moves.

[Lenht1951]

So I for one will hold onto the translated letter but take the E106 letter from FHI website for my visit to CPAM this afternoon. [blink]

[krusty]

Thanks Mafkai your letter seams to cover my situation ,lived here nearly two years and e106 runs out in jan08.

[makfai]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

Mafkai

It was good of you to draft this letter but it has two flaws, one it is in English (and a bit long) and so it will be ignored by 90% of CPAM staff who you mistakenly in my opinion believe actually care what happens. 

Secondly,  it could lead to the concessions that is widely believed may be given to those already in the CMU being withdrawn.

If it is inequitable for those currently on E forms to be excluded from the CMU whilst those who had E106s or didn't qualify may be allowed to continue in the CMU aren't you risking the inequality being balanced by them doing what they originally intended and kicking everybody out?

[/quote]

 

As regards the flaws: firstly, it is in English only because my translation skills are not as good as those of others.  By publishing it in English, I had hoped to speed up the process of lobbying on this issue while it is still being tossed-around.  I thought that someone with better skills than I could translate it and post a French version up here so reducing the time in getting it posted if I had spent translating it. 

As regards it being too long - no one has to use it verbatim or, indeed, at all. It is there - as I said in the original post - as a 'text' NOT a specimen letter to promote people's own ideas on what to say. People are welcome to do whatever they like with it, including ignoring it. It is not compulsory; it was not posted in letter form or with any heading etc just (as it said in the original post) as  'a text  which people can draw on' .

As regards the likelihood of this approach overturning any concessions to be given to those already in the CMU, I don't really understand this argument.  Have you asked the E106 holders if they are prepared to forego lobbying for their protection in case we upset the French Government's possible concessions for others?

Are you saying that we should sacrifice those with E106s even though we have already identified their cause as being just?  I think that such temerity is ill founded.  The position advocated in the text I posted is NOT new.  It has been widely circulated and, as I understood it, was also represented in the views of FHI and others.  What is new is the emphasis on the amount of work which will be engendered by exclusion of the E106 holders who have nothing to lose by appealing.  In view of what we know it seems timely to point that out to those who would be concerned by such an impact.

Frankly, I find the thought of abandoning the E106 holders' right to argue their position because of a possible risk (which I do not accept) that it may affect concessions to other parties a distasteful one.  Personally, I can't write them off as collateral damage to save the existing CMU members - we either fight for what is right or we don't.  We can't just fight for a 'little bit' of what we believe is right without us being accused of being hypocritical - particularly when we have already identified publicly that the E106 holders have a case.

The case for the E106 holders to be allowed access to the CMU has been made from the start of the lobbying process, to suggest we avoid pressing it now because we might upset something (which we do not yet have any details of) sends the wrong message and undermines any 'moral' stance we might take later. 

I think the right of E106 holders to be able to affiliate to the CMU deserves the same amount of support as does the cause of those who are already in the CMU.  I don't support the view that lobbying on the behalf of E106 holders should be subordinate to lobbying for those already affiliated to the CMU.

If we can prevent an inequitable state of affairs then I believe we should.  I am not at all happy with the view that we give up lobbying for this group of people - even though I am not among them.

[Ron Avery]

"If we can prevent an inequitable state of affairs then I believe we should.  I am not at all happy with the view that we give up lobbying for this group of people"

Nobody is suggesting that for one minute, the position of those with expiring E106s is intolerable but there are over 30,000 people who had faced being expelled from the CMU against 3,000 odd who have E 106s expiring,  I just think you should stop and wait before handing the bullet to the French Government that they have been looking for and they on the grounds of "equality" kick everybody out.  You don't believe that you risk that, well I do.

 You cannot arque inequality when you do not even know that the final announcement will result in an unequal situation.  Lets wait and see what the announcement is, hopefully given the plight of those with existing conditions is the most pressing, the outcome may accommodate everybody, if not then we go for the decision makers, not the office personnel. 

[Benjamin]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

New insider info today suggests that the balance at the moment is "very delicate" so certainly one does not want this to result in any retrograde moves.

[/quote]

As someone who clearly has a very sensitive feel for this situation I think these are very wise words.

[cooperlola]

Those whose E106s are about to expire are clearly in the most tenuous position now.  We are trying to put together a strategy which will use this hiatus to the best possible advantage and pursuade the minister and the bureaucrats that the best way forward is to admit all those who were resident on 30.9.07 into the CMU regardless of E form status.  However, given the situation, we obviously need to do this in the best way possible and not upset what seems to be a very delicate balance.  We are certainly not waiting for a new statement, but trying to influence what that statement will say.  As said before, we will try to put something together over the weekend.  In the meantime, obviously we would never try to prevent anybody from following up any option which is available to them in such desperate times, but as a group, we must give this a little more time for consideration as to how we go about it, to get the best outcome for everybody.

[makfai]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

"If we can prevent an inequitable state of affairs then I believe we should.  I am not at all happy with the view that we give up lobbying for this group of people"

Nobody is suggesting that for one minute, the position of those with expiring E106s is intolerable but there are over 30,000 people who had faced being expelled from the CMU against 3,000 odd who have E 106s expiring,  I just think you should stop and wait before handing the bullet to the French Government that they have been looking for and they on the grounds of "equality" kick everybody out.  You don't believe that you risk that, well I do.

 You cannot arque inequality when you do not even know that the final announcement will result in an unequal situation.  Lets wait and see what the announcement is, hopefully given the plight of those with existing conditions is the most pressing, the outcome may accommodate everybody, if not then we go for the decision makers, not the office personnel. 

[/quote]

If I cannot argue 'inequality' in the way it has been presented in the draft 'text' you equally cannot argue that there is a 'possible deal' as information on both come from the same source.  If the latter is accurate it is reasonable to assume the former is too so why wait until it comes out?

I have no personal axe to grind on this - I am not an E106 holder nor am I affiliated to the CMU.  I am looking at this through dispassionate but reasonably well informed eyes.  I do not see how continuing to lobby on the part of E106 holders puts others at risk.  Also, trying to balance the argument on the numbers involved is nonsense.  For example, some of those in the CMU will be able to stay in because of the 5 year rule; and the figure you quote for E106 holders is also incorrect.  However, presenting the numbers argument does suggest that you are prepared to sacrifice the minority for the majority.

As regards my draft 'text' handing the bullet (the bullet being 'inequality' in treatment) to the French Govt  that, as you are aware, was done weeks ago!  The arguments on behalf of E106 holders has been presented from 'day-one' so it is disingenuous to suggest it is only now being raised and that if we don't draw attention to it now no one will notice!

Your argument is based on deterring me from alerting the French Govt to the inequality issue but the fact that this issue has already been raised means that your argument over this recent text holds no substance.  The issues as regards inequality are already in the hands of the decisions makers.  They don't need any new correspondence from me or others as an excuse to take any course of action.

The current CPAMs' concerns apparently centre on the projected workload.  Excluding the E106 holders increases the workload because of appeals.  Maintaining the existing rights of E106 holders will reduce the workload as there will be no appeals. That is the new point this latest draft 'text' makes.  It is designed to appeal to the interests of CPAM staff by showing how maintaining the status quo is of benefit to them.

The arguments for E106 holders to maintain a right of access to healthcare is equal with, and not subordinate to, that for those already in the CMU. No matter which way you cut it, it is being suggested that we hold back on arguing for the rights of E106 holders in case we undermine possible benefits to those already in the CMU.  That argument has no moral currency to me. As a person in neither category, I have been fighting for both categories and will continue to do so.

As I have said, the draft 'text' I presented was not compulsory - people may decide what course of action they wish to take.  Perhaps, because I am not in the CMU already, I am more inclined to be less selective about whose views I represent and when.  I would encourage anyone with an E106 not to be put off by this scare-mongering and to continue to fight their corner.  For those without E106s the choice is an individual one.  I fully understand how difficult it is to balance 'principles' against one's own practical situation and I confess that I am fortunate not to be faced with such a choice. 

In summary,

• E106 holders have the same right to lobby for the maintenance of the status quo as do the existing residents affiliated to the CMU.

• The question of inequality has already been raised with the French Govt so suggesting otherwise is disingenuous.

• The current climate presents an opportunity for E106 holders to convince staff at CPAM level that the workload of CPAMs will not increase if the status quo is maintained for E106 holders. 

• In view of current concerns of CPAM staff this is a valid point to make NOW!

• These 'office workers' as you dismissively describe them DO have influence (as can be seen from the current delay) and it is tactically foolish to dismiss their influence and concentrate solely on addressing the 'decision makers' after the event.

• It is more practical to try to influence decisions before they are announced than try to change them afterwards.

• People can do what they want but E106 holders are encouraged to be undeterred in pressing their case now.

[Sunday Driver]

Sorry makfai, I have to disagree.

The current delay is more likely to be due to CPAM management reviewing the government directive and evaluating the workload impacts, rather than through any grass roots concern expressed by the 'office workers'.   Indeed, you only have to look back through this forum to understand the distain in which the British expat holds the simple French fonctionnaire, so why should we expect them to have any concerns over legal complexities that mean nothing to them or display any real sympathy for our position?

For that reason, I think that the only value that letter has is in terms of providing comfort to the E106 holders that they are 'doing something'.  Nothing else.

The excellent progress that the lobby group have made was always going to be achieved through high level political channels and we are now in the endgame.  It would appear that (at the moment) the CMU battle is won - the priority now is the E106 holders. As cooperlola says, leave it to the lobbying group to drive the E106 question forward.

 

[makfai]

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

Sorry makfai, I have to disagree.

The current delay is more likely to be due to CPAM management reviewing the government directive and evaluating the workload impacts, rather than through any grass roots concern expressed by the 'office workers'.   Indeed, you only have to look back through this forum to understand the distain in which the British expat holds the simple French fonctionnaire, so why should we expect them to have any concerns over legal complexities that mean nothing to them or display any real sympathy for our position?

For that reason, I think that the only value that letter has is in terms of providing comfort to the E106 holders that they are 'doing something'.  Nothing else.

The excellent progress that the lobby group have made was always going to be achieved through high level political channels and we are now in the endgame.  It would appear that (at the moment) the CMU battle is won - the priority now is the E106 holders. As cooperlola says, leave it to the lobbying group to drive the E106 question forward.

 

[/quote]

Perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly when I referring to the CPAMs.  I am not only talking about the 'grass-roots' level operatives and certainly not referring to them tackling legal complexities.  As I understand, it this hiatus has been caused by concerns that complexities in administration will mean an increase in workload throughout  the CPAM structure.  The complexities are likely to be those which relate to processing appeals (e.g. from those with pre-existing conditions).  But the fact that the CPAM staff/management currently do have concerns over complexities can be exploited by explaining to them that there will be no increase in workload in regard to E106 holders if the status quo is maintained for those E106 holders who were already resident by the 'effective date'. 

I don't see how that argument presents any danger to any decision which may be made in regard to those already in the CMU.  It is the exploitation of the staff/management concerns which I was trying to promote on the  Forum and I was disappointed that Ron Avery counselled inaction because action may affect people already affiliated to the CMU. Tell that to the E106 holders!

To be honest I have no intention of leaving it solely to the lobby group to drive the E106 or any other question forward and, contrary to what you said,  I don't think Cooperlola has asked that I do that. 

Without going into detail I have made behind-the-scenes contributions to strategic initiatives from early on in this process and I (and others who are not in the public eye) have helped further the cause both for the lobby group and other interested parties. I intend to continue in doing so not least because of the  following: I totally disagree with your assessment that we are in the end game.  I have no wish to be a 'prophet of doom' but I think that - while existing residents who were affiliated to the CMU before the 'effective date' may be OK - that does not mean that this matter is by any means in the end game.

I also do not dismiss 'high level political channels', on the contrary I and others in and out of the lobby group have been in touch with such since this process began.  But lobbying is not about 'either'/'or' it should encompass all levels of influence. So, in saying what you say, I do not think that you are giving enough recognition to the effect that upward pressure can bring.  Without going into detail, local organisations (e.g mairie and, in this case, CPAM offices)  can exert pressure upwards. 

One important tactic in all this will be to ensure that people apply for what they feel they should be entitled and appeal if their application is rejected.  Soundings will be taken at local level by those higher placed political personages. It is important, therefore, that persons at a local level can reflect the views that we wish to voice. The same goes for formal complaints to the French Govt/Ombudsman and the EU authorities; these should continue because they ARE assessed.  All these areas are used as 'barometers' and a have role to play in influencing decision making along with - as you say - high level political channels. 

So sorry SD, I am afraid you have not heard the last of me on this[:-))]

[poleta]

Well put makfai. We should definitely continue to put pressure on all fronts. Any signs of a split could lead to the French adopting a divide and conquer strategy. If people hold back in their protests, it could be considered tacit acceptence of the current situation and not of the "anticipated" situation. I too think that a solution may be a long time coming and the E106'ers who lose their rights in January must remain of equal priority.

The very fact that people are talking about different approaches for CMU'ers and E106'ers seems to confirm that we are not united. We either stand up for what we believe is right for all or it's every man for himself. Lobby everyone you can think of - especially the French health service, ministers, deputies, and MEPs.

Maybe a rocket applied to a certain part of Jim Murphy's anatomy would prompt him to clarify the situation!

[cooperlola]

[quote user="poleta"]

Maybe a rocket applied to a certain part of Jim Murphy's anatomy would prompt him to clarify the situation!

[/quote]Mr Murphy has remained typically dumb on this subject since I pointed this out to him yesterday!

http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/jim_murphy/archive/2007/12/03/15249.aspx

[Sunday Driver]

As I understand, it this hiatus has been caused by concerns that complexities in administration will mean an increase in workload throughout  the CPAM structure.  The complexities are likely to be those which relate to processing appeals (e.g. from those with pre-existing conditions).  But the fact that the CPAM staff/management currently do have concerns over complexities can be exploited by explaining to them that there will be no increase in workload in regard to E106 holders if the status quo is maintained for those E106 holders who were already resident by the 'effective date'. 

CPAM management have already expressed strong concerns over the apparent complexities in administration and maintaining the status quo with regard to E106 holders will clearly have been factored into their workload calculations, so I do not see what the benefit would be in 'explaining' this to them.  The workload issue is a strong point and the CPAM objections are now working in our favour.

The text which you posted is overcomplex, covering a wider range of issues other than workload.  I do not think that people will use it merely as ideas on what to say, on the contrary, many will have insufficient French to do this and will probably just hand it over to the clerk.  To be honest, I think it'd up in the bin.

I am not denigrating any of the efforts that you have contributed toward the campaign and I do not dismiss the effect of upward pressure.  Like you, I have been working behind the scenes on this, but in the final analysis, it's the big guns which will drive things forward.  In this instance, the CPAMs have already loaded up.... 

 

[Ron Avery]

I have a question Mafkai

If you don't have an E 106 and are not in the CMU, what exactly is your position? As you don't say where you live, are you actually in France and on an E 121 then?

I am not going to fall out with anybody over this,  SD has echoed my concerns admirably, but please do me a favour, do not put words or meanings into my posts that are clearly not there.  As it stands you, by your proposed actions, I believe and so do others, you are risking the future healthcare provisions of 30,000 people by your inequality arquement. There may be 7000 E 106 holders but they are not all retired inactifs and they don't all expire this year do they?, so its right to get the numbers in perspective isn't it? 

I also  believe, looking at your summary you are reading far too much into the influence of the CPAM reception staff.  Do you really believe that the people we see with our forms and problems will influence any decisions?  Have you ever been to a CPAM office?  Ask them anything out of the ordinary as I have about this issue, and they immediately pick up the phone and phone head office.

Also I don't understand how an arquement that the "CPAM workload" will not increase with the status quo holds any water.  Surely with say 7000 less people to worry about it goes down?. Are you assuming that that appeals, if there are going to be any, are to be handled by CPAM staff in the local offices?