Lobbying !

[Joshua]

Greater Manchester Pension Fund who pay my Local Government Pension say their fund is in excess of  £6 Billion

So I'm not sure about "not having a pension fund as such"

 I paid 6% of my salary into it for thirty odd years so I'm thinking I'm getting some of that back now!

Joshua[:D]

[Boiling a frog]

Joshua,

I hope you get your 6% back for many years to come.  People who work in Local Govt, civil service and all the others are paid from taxation. For some all of the money is paid from the Consolidated Fund and for others a mix of mainly payments to Local Authorities from the Consolidated Fund and the Community Charge which is one of the few taxes not paid into the big pot. If you were listening instead of firing elastic bands at the girls in the front row at your induction course you know as much about Govt funding as I do.

Please do not divert me with the differences between a civil servant and a local govt employee and what the funding  of pension payments are.. We can keep this for a later date. I have many more years of French parliamentary debates and the ilk to read in French and I do not find them exciting.

At   the moment I am more concerned about how the French system is funded, and whether persons in receipt of  UK Government pensions covered by the double taxation treaty are less entitled to health health care in France than people who pay income tax in France is spurious as payment of income tax in France does not contribute to the French health care system

 

[Joshua]

Thanks BAF

I fully intend to keep drawing my GMPF Pension for many many years.

My induction course was in 1965 so I must have forgotten most of what the man said.

If we are less entitled for Health Care paid by France maybe our E106 should last forever !

Joshua[:P]

[Lenht1951]

[quote user="Joshua"]If we are less entitled for Health Care paid by France maybe our E106 should last forever !
Joshua[:P][/quote]


Don't see why it shouldn't as I pay income tax on my govmnt. pension in the uk, part of which is for a health service I am unable to access, can't even get an EHIC after Jan 08.[:'(]

[Boiling a frog]

Ok So wooly bananna has a point.

 We who are obliged to pay our tax in the UK are not entitled to French health care.

So we will have to start a lobby group to force the UK Govt to pay our health care for us by extending or reinstating an E106

Wonder how many years that is going to take .

I will probably be at least entitled to an E121 before that comes to pass more likely be dead and buried and mouldering in my grave.

Anyone else want to come up with groups whom the French Government can exclude.  [:)]

 

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

So we will have to start a lobby group to force the UK Govt to pay our health care for us by extending or reinstating an E106

Wonder how many years that is going to take .

 [/quote]

About 5 minutes, BAF The official line from the UK D of H is that irrespective of where you pay your income tax, you gave up the right to free healthcare at the point of delivery when you CHOSE to move to France.

[Rob]

Whilst I can understand the campaign feels the priority should be to secure relief for those already resident in France, by failing to set our grievances within a wider context we are in danger of accepting the legitimacy of the changes.

 

Judging by the reaction of the French and UK citizens alike, we certainly seem to have lost the public relations battle on this issue.

 

The fact is that the private insurance industry in France is completely ill equipped to take on the task of providing health insurance for expats.

 

Whilst there are a few companies who offer short term insurance until their clients can gain access to the CMU, there is no company that is offering a decent, competitive long-term private insurance policy.

 

They do not do so because there is simply no proper legal, fiscal, or social basis for private health insurance in France.

 

Even if we are to accept (which I do not) the legitimacy of this law, why has the ‘campaign’ not stated to the French Government that its implementation should be set aside until there is a private insurance industry in France capable of taking on the responsibility?

 

Surely we should have been arguing that if the French Government are going to change the rules of the game, then they also have a responsibility to ensure there is proper alternative provision?  Tactically, this would have been a strong, morally defensible position.

 

If the Government could have been persuaded that the mutuelles, in particular, should be granted the clear right and incentive to offer ‘private’ health policies this whole crisis could have been averted.

[cooperlola]

FHI - which is what I have to assume you mean by "the campaign"  - has not abandoned the ideal of crushing the legislation altogether.  That is why we are backing the Honeyball declaration, and will continue to do so. If it fails, we will try again, have no fear.  I have no idea at all where you got any other impression from.

However, as you obviously appreciate, this does nothing for the thousands who are (forgive me) sh*t scared now about what's happening WITHIN DAYS.  Between now and the 5th January, morally if for no other reason, we must treat them as a priority.  We have limited resources - all the work we do is given freely and without cost to anybody, except in terms of time.  The fact that we appear to be concentrating upon them at the moment is for that reason and that reason alone.

Whatever the announcement says, FHI is commited to continue to campaign for as long as it takes to seek Justice for ALL.  We hope that everybody else will continue to support us in this - even if they personally get relief from the new rules, whatever they turn out to be.

FHI HAT OFF

The problem with your suggestion of asking for a moritorium (which we have considered) at this stage, is that it could give the French Government more time to think this through.  At least for the sake of those in dire need, we should get them on the hop, imo, and not allow them time to "gear up" for anything.

[rothrugby]

I agree with FHI, we must concentrate on those who are here in France now ( inc. E106 holders). Trying to argue a case for those who may want to come to France at some unspecified time in the future may be difficult  as this would require the french gov. to write a blank cheque for costs, as it were. At present they should have some idea of how much the various proposals cost.

In any event, the main thrust of our argument is that when we all came to france we had no choice on healthcare & we were all aware of this. Any new arrivals should be made aware of the new rules so that they can make their own decision which could mean up to 5 years (depending on any E106 they may be able to get) of PHI until permanent residence is established.

I know this may seem a bit harsh, but France does have the right to make laws, some good & some not & if we try to push them too hard then we might lose whatever sympathy we have.

[makfai]

[quote user="rothrugby"]

I know this may seem a bit harsh, but France does have the right to make laws, some good & some not & if we try to push them too hard then we might lose whatever sympathy we have.

[/quote]

I do not accept that any Government has the right to remain unchallenged if they make some laws which are 'not good'. 

I also find it difficult to get to grips with concepts which seem to suggest that 'future' residents living under the same rules as existing residents would create financial problems for France while those existing residents wont.  If those rules are causing problems for France then it may well be that the French Government's changes on healthcare cover are NOT unreasonable.  Personally, I don't accept that current or future 'expat' residents will create a significant burden on the economy.

I have found these discussions rather illuminating.  I have always fully supported the case for all existing residents to have access to healthcare on the terms which previously existed.  I equally feel that those terms should continue to apply to new residents.  I am not sure why existing 'expat' residents should feel that it is OK to have more restrictive terms for EU citizens than it does for non-EU Citizens and themselves.

The French Government knows what the EU is all about. An essential aspect is that it creates the concept of EU Citizenship. 

This aspect has been directly explained by Franco Frattini Vice President of the European Commission in the publication directly related to this EU Directive 'Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the Union.....Guide on how to get the best out of Directive 2004/38/EC' 'Civis europaeus sum' which may be found here

Community law, in the form of Directive 2004/38/EC, fulfils one of humanity’s most long-standing aspirations: the possibility of moving without restrictions or hindrances and settling down in the country of one’s choice together with one’s family. This “Guide” is part of our efforts to fully familiarise Union citizens with the rights and advantages they enjoy thanks to EU membership, to enable them to call upon their new legal status and to declare “civis europaeus sum”.

So I have never understood why people who are in the EU and aspire to settle down in the country of their choice should be placed at a disadvantage compared with non-EU immigrants and people already resident in that country. 

The principle of the EU Directive was intended to 'fulfil one of humanity's most long-standing aspirations: the possibility of moving without restrictions or hindrances'.  Is that what the the French Government has achieved for 'potential residents'?  Certainly not for those who may experience problems in obtaining insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

[Boiling a frog]

While I agree that the E106's are the most urgent cases to consider the campaign may have shot itself in the foot by continueing to concentrate its statements on the people who have health conditions and who will thus be unable to find private health care

Going by this statement  in the French national assembly

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.

which I posted earlier it is clear that the reason the new legislation has been introduced to prevent people searching out the country with the most favourable social security laws and declaring that they have little or no resources .The statement goes onto explain that it is difficult to establish exactly what resources  or lack of resources these people have.

I suspect that the French Govt are as concerned as the British are about health tourism and perhaps the impression being given is that some  are in fact health tourists having come to France for better treatment under the French health system.

But that is of course only my opinion  

[cooperlola]

PERSONALLY I believe that although we have to concentrate on those most in need - for logistical reasons if nothing else - at the moment,   I think the iniquity of using a piece of legislation which states openly that it is to "promote free movement" with the Union, to do the precise opposite, is just plain wrong and I will continue to oppose it in any way I can.

[makfai]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

 health tourists having come to France for better treatment under the French health system.

But that is of course only my opinion  

[/quote]

 

Health tourists do not normally take up residence.

[makfai]

[quote user="cooperlola"]PERSONALLY I believe that although we have to concentrate on those most in need - for logistical reasons if nothing else - at the moment,   I think the iniquity of using a piece of legislation which states openly that it is to "promote free movement" with the Union, to do the precise opposite, is just plain wrong and I will continue to oppose it in any way I can.[/quote]

I support that stance.  For the French Government to say that the changes are driven by EU Directive 2004/38EC clearly undermines the changes they have introduced.

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="makfai"][quote user="Boiling a frog"]

 health tourists having come to France for better treatment under the French health system.

But that is of course only my opinion  

[/quote]

 

Health tourists do not normally take up residence.

[/quote]

 

I was paraphrasing what the Depute said in the French National assembly. I  suggest that you take your comment up with her.Here is her address and telephone number.

Assemblée nationale,
126 rue de l'Université,
75355 Paris 07 SP

99 Avenue de la Rose
13013 Marseille
Téléphone : 08 77 87 67 14
Téléphone : 04 91 66 79 39
Télécopie : 04 91 66 79 39

and her email

[email protected]

Perhaps you can put her right

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="cooperlola"]PERSONALLY I believe that although we have to concentrate on those most in need - for logistical reasons if nothing else - at the moment,   I think the iniquity of using a piece of legislation which states openly that it is to "promote free movement" with the Union, to do the precise opposite, is just plain wrong and I will continue to oppose it in any way I can.[/quote]

 

It may state it is to promote free movement but it also has certain preconditions ie for inactives not to be a burden on the state and health cover.

If all of the EU countries were really wishing total free movement then these preconditions for inactives would never have been included

Grand words I think ""promote free movement"" but with a P.S.

[makfai]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

 inactives not to be a burden on the state and health cover.

[/quote]

 

Are inactives in France a burden on state and health cover?

[makfai]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

I was paraphrasing what the Depute said in the French National assembly.

[/quote]

I know you were.  I was replying to your paraphrase.

[cooperlola]

It depends upon your definition of what a burden is, Baf. Whilst I am allowed to pay 8% of my income into the state health coffers, whilst taking very little out, I personally represent a contribution to the state, don't I?  Nobody is in a position  (or not so far as I have seen to date), to calculate what the actual costs or benefits of keeping early retirees within the CMU actually are (given that we'll be paid for by the UK once we get into our early to mid 60s.)

Here is a quote from a letter sent by Bernard Poignant (one of my MEPs) , to the French Health Minister:

"Il semble à cet égard que vous ayez pris la décision de demander à tous les étrangers inactifs en France de sortir du système d'assurance santé d'État 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, mais 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 compagnies 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, qui précise que les étrangers inactifs doivent posséder une assurance, et ne pas devenir une charge déraisonnable pour l'État. Or, la plupart des étrangers inactifs en France cotisent à la CMU et ne sont pas « une charge » pour l'État. 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 parait 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 eu égard à la nationalité."

My italics. Sums it up quite neatly, imo.

[hester]

From one who is "sh*t scared" like a rabbit trapped in the headlights thanks Cooperlola and everyone else for hanging in there for us.  Regards, Hester.

[Boiling a frog]

not being a burden on the state and having health cover are two seperate things.

Not being a burden means you have adequate funds to support yourself which the French have stated is the RMI figure which is 440€ per month for a single person.Nothing whatsoever to do with health care and payment for it.

Second is health cover.A totally seperate matter.

I believe the French expected an inundation of people from the new member states who possibly have poor or at least poorer health care facilities than France.

France is always being cited as having one of the best health care providers

If they had kept to the previous rules these people could have come to France and after 3 months received health care via CMU,very possibly free,with free complementaire as well.

The system is already under strain so they used the directive to insist that people had health care in place before they arrived.

Unfortunatly us Britaniques are suffering collateral damage .

They still want to insist that anyone coming to France has health cover in place before they arrive here but are possibly trying to design some sort of concession for Britaniques without leaving a loophole for the new arrivals

We here in the Charente already have about 50 Rumanians camping out on the banks of the Charente,begging in the streets of Angouleme.The authorities do not know what to do with them,the prefecture says they have no way of knowing or proving how long they have been here as there are open borders with no passport control so cannot throw them out.

I still maintain that the focus should be on pressing the French Govt for a statement. 

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="cooperlola"]PERSONALLY I believe that although we have to concentrate on those most in need - for logistical reasons if nothing else - at the moment,   I think the iniquity of using a piece of legislation which states openly that it is to "promote free movement" with the Union, to do the precise opposite, is just plain wrong and I will continue to oppose it in any way I can.[/quote] 

There is a key word you are missing out of the legislation being liberally bandied around to justify some sort of claim for continued health care for all and that is workers.  Which is exactly the opposite to what the 37,000 odd people affected by this change are.

[makfai]

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

[quote user="cooperlola"]PERSONALLY I believe that although we have to concentrate on those most in need - for logistical reasons if nothing else - at the moment,   I think the iniquity of using a piece of legislation which states openly that it is to "promote free movement" with the Union, to do the precise opposite, is just plain wrong and I will continue to oppose it in any way I can.[/quote] 

There is a key word you are missing out of the legislation being liberally bandied around to justify some sort of claim for continued health care for all and that is workers.  Which is exactly the opposite to what the 37,000 odd people affected by this change are.

[/quote]

Ron... have a read of the legislation and this official EU guide to it.  It is not about free movement of workers.  It explicitly says the opposite!

The Guide will further familiarise Union citizens with the rights and freedoms afforded them by this Directive, whether or not they perform an economic activity in the host Member State.

http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/frattini/archive/guide_2004_38_ec_en.pdf

[ams]

I too am of the opinion that the directive was enacted in order to protect existing countries against Bulgaria and Rumania. Unfortunately or perhaps not for the French government and for other like minded governments, Spanish, Dutch etc, the directive saved a lot of health costs which could be used for their own people.

 

In Ireland about 6 months ago, a rather large Romanoff family of about 65 encamped on the Dublin ring road and caused havoc. The problem was resolved using the very same legislation as currently being used by the French Government against EU inactive citizens. the romanoff's were unable to demonstrate that they had sufficient funds to support themselves and had not got suitable private health cover. accordingly they were put on a private plane and returned to Rumania, passports stamped etc.

 

ams

[woolybanana]

Weren't the Romanoiks all sorted in the Russian revolution. I'm sure you mean Romany's who probably come from Egypt or Iran somewhere, don't they?