Lobbying !

[woolybanana]

Turned on its head, it restricts the people who may enter France in future as early retired and for more than two years to those who are healthy. Hmmmmmmmm.

[Deimos]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

 ... and I still think that it is better to wait and see what is on offer, make sure the weakest and most vulnerable are protected and then lobby for other changes.

[/quote]

Sorry.  I had not realised the French gov. were going to make us an offer and we could then accept or reject it (maybe sending them back to think again if we did not like it).  Not had much time to keep up with things recently and I previously thought they were just going to say what would happen and once decided  "that was it" type of thing.

Ian

[makfai]

RON said  I seemed to be 'challenging the legal right of the French to make conditions for entry to France to EU citizens'.

This is simply wrong.

In my paper available on the FHI website here  I clearly said

18. There is no suggestion that there are any grounds to mount a challenge against the lawful authority of an EU state to make its own rules on healthcare.  That right for all  EU states has been fundamental to the Treaty.

 19. Equally, there is no doubt that legislation on other matters within the EU may have an impact on each state’s individual healthcare arrangements.

 20. The legislation introduced in EU Directive 2004/38/EC is such a piece of legislation.  It legislates on rights of residence but it contains arrangements that, when implemented, will clearly impact on healthcare.

I do not dispute the 'right' of Governments to make laws but the 'right' to make a law does not make that law 'right'! 

All EU States are bound by EU law.  As has been emphasised, the legislation which is the subject of this campaign is, and always has been, primarily IMMIGRATION legislation NOT healthcare. EU States do not have the same degree as autonomy in immigration legislation as they do in healthcare legislation.  But even then no one has challenged the right of the French Government to make laws.  What has been challenged is the law which has been made.

If you think the French Government legislation is legally invulnerable to challenge just because the Government has made it, then that principle has to apply across the board. This legislation affects existing as well as future residents; if we can't challenge the latter we can't challenge the former.  If that is the case we would have to abandon fighting for anyone in or out of the CMU!

So, NO, I do not challenge the right of a Government to make laws but that does not prevent me from challenging the laws which have been made.  If the opposite was true we would still be holding witch trials and other things.  For example, on a lighter note, did you know that the law requiring a London taxi driver to carry a bale of hay on top of his cab to feed the horse was in force until 1976? For some American examples have a look here and there is even a book available on the UK ones.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Deimos"]I think the "we should stop lobbying as looks like I've got my cover back and don't want to risk losing that" (whilst ignoring others, maybe with chronic illnesses, etc.) is maybe what makes the world the place it is today.

Ian[/quote]Quite.

FHI HAT OFF

I think we should be fighting for all those who live here - regardless of Eform status, who complied fully with the residency regulations as they stood when they moved here.  For anybody planning to move here, or coming here in the future, the Honeyball declaration calls for - in effect - universal portable state heathcare throughout the union.  That is the perfect outcome, imo, and by continuing over the next 6 weeks or so which it has to run, to lobby MEPs all over Europe to encourage them to sign it, we have a chance to achieve that too. That's what my personal efforts are and will continue to be concentrated upon.

[woolybanana]

Well said. There are so many anomolous situations being created. My line is that if you pay tax in a country to should have right to access the benefits of that country on the same terms as nationals.

[cooperlola]

Absolutely, oh wooly one. It's a downright barefaced cheek to tell me I'm enough of a legal resident to pay income tax, but not enough of one to contribute to and use the health system.  HUMPH![:@]

[makfai]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

The French health provision is in trouble and cannot afford to support people who were never intended to be included in the CMU. 

[/quote]

I am confused by this statement. If you say that it was never intended that residents from overseas should affiliate to the CMU does this mean that you agree with the policy announced by the French Government in September and people should be removed?  Or is it that only new arrivals should be barred?

Personally I have never understood how people can say that the French Government never 'intended' for 'expats' to be affiliated to the CMU.  The French Government knew when they introduced the law that they had residents from other EU States.  They have also known SINCE that law was introduced that they had such persons - they have taken money off them and treated them. They also knew that EU law permitted them to make changes YEARS AGO but they did the opposite - made it compulsory to 'join' the CMU ! 

Below is an edited extract from the draft paper on the effect on 'potential residents' which touches on this

1.      The requirement for potential residents to be ‘covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State’ has been part of EU law for over a decade.[1]  In that time the French Government has consistently failed to apply that criterion.  In fact, the contrary applies.  

2.      As we have seen, the French Government has, for the past seven years, made it compulsory by law for all residents to be part of the state system! [2] 

3.      It is, therefore, perfectly ‘legitimate’ for people to expect that the situation which had been in place for years would continue.   

4.      In this context it is worthy of note that, in the three years following the publication of the Directive, there had never been any suggestion that the French Government would change existing procedures. This is despite a clear and unambiguous requirement for them to publish details of any changes.[3] 

---

[1] See examples at :Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0364:EN:HTML

     Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed 

     persons who have ceased their occupational activity

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0365:EN:HTML

[2] Loi DDOS of 4th February 1995 and Loi 99-641 CMU of 27th July 1999

[3] Article 34 of EU Directive 2004/38EC

 

So if the French Government HAD made a mistake when the legislation was introduced, and had overlooked the fact that they had residents who were citizens of other EU States, they have had plenty of time to correct that oversight!

Another factor to be considered in this context is that residents who are from non-EU States are, despite the new and current legislation, STILL able to affiliate to the CMU. This piece of French legislation refers only to citizens of EU States.  This has been confirmed by Stephanie Gaillard the spokesperson on Social Security matters for the French Government. 

So I do not support the argument that the CMU was never 'intended' for overseas residents who came to live in France - it was and STILL is (as long as you are not from the EU).

[cooperlola]

Here is a little more history for you, from the birth of the CMU legislation

Loi 99-641 27 July 1999 setting up the CMU states

DE LA COUVERTURE MALADIE UNIVERSELLE




Article 1er

Il est créé, pour les résidents de la France métropolitaine et des départements d'outre-mer, une couverture maladie universelle qui garantit à tous une prise en charge des soins par un régime d'assurance maladie, et aux personnes dont les revenus sont les plus faibles le droit à une protection complémentaire et à la dispense d'avance de frais.

Now that clearly states that the CMU is being created for residents of France which will guarantee for all treatment by a health assurance.

and
for people whose income is very small the right to complementary assurance

So CMU base(CMU B) was set up for everyone who did not have access to medical care by any other means
and CMU complementaire(CMU C) was set up for those who had very little money and who could not afford to pay for a complementaire assurance.

It was originally envisaged that some 150000 people would benefit from CMU B while some 4.5 million would benifit from CMU C

So
CMU B was NOT set up for the poor
CMU C was set up for the poor

In another article this position is reenforced
http://www.issa.int/pdf/helsinki2000/topic4/1lelaidier.PDF

Sylvie LE LAIDIER
Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés
France
stated

Qu'est ce que la CMU ?
La couverture maladie universelle s'inscrit dans le cadre de la lutte contre les exclusions.
Elle vise à faire disparaître les obstacles et les difficultés que rencontrent de nombreuses
personnes résidant en France dans l'accès à la prévention et aux soins, dont on sait qu'il
était très inégalement assuré par le dispositif de l'aide médicale.
La loi du 27 juillet 1999 portant création d'une couverture maladie universelle met en place à
compter du 1er janvier 2000 deux droits fondamentaux pour l'accès aux soins :
§ un droit immédiat à l'assurance maladie pour toute personne en résidence stable et
régulière sur le territoire, aussi bien métropolitain que dans les DOM ;
§ un droit pour les plus défavorisés, sous condition de ressources, à une couverture
complémentaire gratuite, avec dispense d'avance des frais (" tiers-payant ").

Again two seperate systems CMU B and CMU C

Only CMU C mentions people with little or no income

La loi sur la CMU prévoit pour ces personnes une affiliation au régime général sur critère de
résidence. Seuls les assurés dont les revenus fiscaux dépassent un seuil, fixé à 42 000 F par
an, paieront une cotisation, au taux de 8% calculée sur les revenus excédant ce seuil.

Why would the French insert this piece of legislation if they did not envisage that some people would have an income above 42000 francs but either did not have any health cover or had private medical assurance .

Qui a droit à la CMU ?
L'assurance maladie :
affiliation au régime général sur critère de résidence
§ elle est ouverte à tout résident en situation stable et régulière ne disposant pas de droits
ouverts à un régime obligatoire d'assurance maladie.



Ces deux volets de la réforme sont distincts, puisque l’un porte sur
la couverture de base par un régime obligatoire, alors que l’autre concerne la couverture
complémentaire des plus défavorisés. Dans la pratique, de nombreuses personnes bénéficient
aujourd’hui de l’un et de l’autre dispositif.

A statement which says that the reforms are in two distinct parts,
First a health cover for all and
Second
A compementary health cover for the poor.

A third example which says exactly the same
http://www.cmu.fr/site/index.php4

La CMU de base permet à tous les résidents en France de bénéficier des prestations en santé couvertes par les régimes d’assurance maladie obligatoires. Mais ces régimes ne prennent pas en charge la totalité des dépenses de santé engagées.

La CMU complémentaire, attribuée sous conditions de ressources, est une sorte de complémentaire santé gratuite qui prend en charge ce qui n’est pas couvert par les régimes d'assurance maladie obligatoire.

[makfai]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

The position at the moment is that there are around 30000 people who have access to CMU

[/quote]

I think the real hang-up with the proposed new system (which we saw briefly yesterday) is not so much about those already the CMU but the appeals process. So I am hoping that this statistic alone should terrify the CNAM/CPAM people. 

If you were in CNAM/CPAM would you want these 30,000 rejected and then have to deal with their appeals?  Add to these the complications of dealing with the E106 appeals (which pose their own special blend of problems!) and you have a real mess as has been raised at page 60 of this topic

[cooperlola]

BaF - where does the 30,000 figure come from?  We have asked the DWP and the FG how many people are affected but nobody we've communicated with seems to know.  Do you mean UK citizens, European citizens or all non-French?  Seriously, it would be good to know the source as I have never seen a figure confirmed (except of course the total numbers, which include the French.)  Also, is this de base, complementaire or both?

[Boiling a frog]

Re the figure of 30000

It came from my research into the situation and is a statement to the French Assembly dated 11 October 2007 by Mme Boyer a depute of the assembly national

1. Une réglementation plus stricte face à certaines dérives

a) Les ressortissants communautaires inactifs

Les conditions d’accès des ressortissants communautaires aux prestations sociales non contributives ont été récemment modifiées en application d’une directive communautaire, la directive 2004/38 CE du 29 avril 2004 relative au droit des citoyens de l’Union et des membres de leurs familles de circuler et de séjourner librement sur le territoire des États membres. Ce texte vise à concilier plusieurs principes et préoccupations plus ou moins contradictoires, comme le rappellent les considérants généraux de son introduction : le « droit fondamental et individuel de circuler et de séjourner librement sur le territoire des États membres (…) » des citoyens communautaires, mais aussi la nécessité « d’éviter que les personnes exerçant leur droit au séjour ne deviennent une charge déraisonnable pour le système d’assistance sociale » des États. En conséquence, la directive autorise les États membres à restreindre le droit de séjour pour les ressortissants communautaires faisant appel à leur système d’assistance sociale (c’est-à-dire aux prestations de solidarité, comme les minima sociaux, par opposition aux prestations contributives), sous réserve d’un traitement individualisé des cas et d’une protection totale de certaines catégories : travailleurs et demandeurs d’emploi.

La loi n° 2006-911 du 24 juillet 2006 relative à l’immigration et à l’intégration a transposé la plus grande part de cette directive. Son article 23 définit le « droit au séjour » des ressortissants communautaires (ainsi que suisses et de l’Espace économique européen), notamment en précisant que ce droit, pour une durée supérieure à trois mois, est subordonné à diverses conditions alternatives : exercer une activité professionnelle ; ou être en formation ; ou disposer de « ressources suffisantes » ainsi que d’une assurance maladie ; ou être un parent proche de personnes répondant aux conditions précédentes.

Sur un point, toutefois, la directive n’avait pas été transposée par la loi du 24 juillet 2006. Bien que, de manière générale, droit au séjour et droit à bénéficier dans le pays d’accueil de toutes les prestations sociales qui y sont en vigueur soient liés dans le texte communautaire (solution logique au regard du principe d’égalité de traitement), il prévoit une exception : le séjour ne doit pas être refusé aux ressortissants communautaires se rendant dans un autre État membre pour y chercher un emploi, mais celui-ci n’est pas tenu de leur ouvrir droit à ses prestations d’assistance sociale tant qu’ils ne travaillent pas (mais recherchent activement un emploi ce qui leur donne droit au séjour). L’article 63 de la loi n° 2007-290 du 5 mars 2007 instituant le droit au logement opposable et portant diverses mesures en faveur de la cohésion sociale a pris en compte cette exception concernant les ressortissants communautaires « entrés en France pour y chercher un emploi et qui s’y maintiennent à ce titre » (il s’agit de personnes qui n’ont pas ou très marginalement travaillé en France, pas des ressortissants communautaires durablement insérés dans l’emploi dans notre pays et qui connaissant ensuite une période de chômage), en les écartant du RMI, de l’allocation de parent isolé (API) et du droit de bénéficier de l’assurance maladie sur critère de résidence, donc de la CMU, tandis que l’article 51 du présent projet de loi de finances étend cette mesure au cas de l’allocation aux adultes handicapés (AAH).

En application de ces dispositions, qui ont fait l’objet d’une lettre ministérielle du 20 juillet 2007, un ressortissant communautaire inactif a le droit de séjourner en France pour une durée supérieure à trois mois s’il dispose d’une assurance maladie et de ressources suffisantes. Il ne peut plus prétendre au bénéfice de la CMU de base et de la CMUC mais peut entrer dans le champ de l’aide médicale d’État sous condition de ressources. Des instructions ont été diffusées en ce sens le 2 août 2007 par la Caisse nationale d’assurance maladie ; 30 000 ressortissants britanniques, notamment, seraient concernés, et des protestations se sont élevées. Même si des aménagements sont apportés, il apparaît légitime que cette réglementation conforme au droit communautaire soit appliquée, car elle apporte une réponse tant au risque d’un « tourisme » intracommunautaire de recherche des régimes sociaux les plus favorables qu’à la difficulté pratique du contrôle transnational des ressources déclarées (ou plutôt de l’absence de ressources déclarée) par les intéressés pour bénéficier des prestations en cause.

 

Full text is here

 

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/budget/plf2008/a0277-tx.asp#P572_68548

 

Now I presume that she got her figure from somewhere ,whether it includes the E106's or not I do not know but as she is talking about the CMU I believe it is just the CMU figure.

Also note that she is convinced that this exclusion conforms to european law,and that the first circular went out on 2nd August 2007.

[cooperlola]

Thanks a lot, BaF.[:)]

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Well said. There are so many anomolous situations being created. My line is that if you pay tax in a country to should have right to access the benefits of that country on the same terms as nationals.[/quote]

 

Wooly what tax,or is it all taxes.

I pay tax habitation and tax fonciere but I do not pay income tax in France as I am obliged to pay  my income tax in the UK.

Am I, therefore, by your arguement entitled or not entitled to health care in France.  

[woolybanana]

Income tax seems a good starting point.

[Boiling a frog]

So I would be excluded from the French health system,along with all the others who are here ex civil servants,police officers,teachers and ex armed forces.who are obliged to pay tax in the UK

Bet that counts for a fair few of the 30000 CMU people and a fair few of the E106's

[woolybanana]

Not at all. I dont see why you cant pay your income tax where you live as I have to.

[Ron Avery]

Not at all. I dont see why you cant pay your income tax where you live as I have to.

 

I have always wondered why these civil servants etc cannot be taxed in the country they live, but is it a security issue?

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

Not at all. I dont see why you cant pay your income tax where you live as I have to.

 

I have always wondered why these civil servants etc cannot be taxed in the country they live, but is it a security issue?

[/quote]It is certainly one of the aspects of the dual taxation agreement which has always foxed me.  Is not the point of taxation, that it pays for the services one actually uses?  Presumably entire hoards of civil servants were employed to hammer this out at some time!  And where is the reciprocity in this? I can't imagine that armies of retired French civil servants now live in the UK.

[Tony F Dordogne]

Let's see whether we can sort this out.  Some UK pensions cannot be paid in France and are taxed in the UK - that's the way things are at the moment but who knows, that may eventually change.

But, regardless of where you pay your tax, you should still be registered for income tax in France if you live here permenantly as you have to declare your global income as a French resident.  The paperwork from the joint tax agreement then takes care of the payment in UK/resident in France issues.

In that way, whilst you may not physically pay in France, you are registered for taxation purposes in France.

Loads of people have been using this system for years - including me now - and it works well.

[Joshua]

We have drifted away from lobbying but I would like to continue the debate regarding taxation because its one of the questions I've asked DWP about, with my Plan B. I'm ex Local Authority and get caught in the double taxation trap.

Joshua[:)]

[Bugsy]

Strangely, it doesn't affect NHS pensions.

It does the Police Force but I'm not sure about the Fire Brigade.

I've never found a definative list though.

[Boiling a frog]

It is fairly simple

The UK govt who pay the pensions of the former civil servants,police officers, teachers, etcetc do not have a pension fund as such. The pensions are funded from the payments made by current employees.This same system of funding pension schemes is fairly common in other countries also ,hence the number of double taxation treaties in respect of Government employees .The attitude is

We  the Govt are paying the pension we have a right to tax the pension.

In France us inactives pay Tax Habitation ,Tax Fonciere and some Impots sur le revenu(income tax)

None of the above mentioned taxes are used for Health Care. However how many of the following social taxes are you eligible to pay?  Family Benefits
Health/Sickness
Social Welfare Levy
Accident at Work
Unemployment Benefit
Main Pension
Comp Pension

 

 

 

[Lenht1951]

You are quite right bugbear. In fact I know someone who paid income tax on his NHS pension in the UK. He was then taxed on the pension in France and the Impots advised him that it was not part of the reciprical agreement and he should claim the tax paid in the UK back. He did and now pays substantially less tax in France than he did in the UK. Nice to have a result for a change.

Fire Service same as Police taxed at source.

[Bugsy]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

It is fairly simple

The UK govt who pay the pensions of the former civil servants,police officers, teachers, etcetc do not have a pension fund as such. The pensions are funded from the payments made by current employees.This same system of funding pension schemes is fairly common in other countries also ,hence the number of double taxation treaties in respect of Government employees .

[/quote]

I understand that BaF but,  don't they also pay the NHS ?

[Boiling a frog]

Basically what I am trying to show is that tax coming in and tax being spent in the UK all goes into and out of the same pot.

In France they have lots of pots and they don't mix them up.