After the election

[Benjamin]

[quote user="LanguedocGal"]

I agree with WJT’s first post above.

2000K averages out -in my mind - only in the Merlin the Magician school of accountancy (They're having a laff up there in Newcastle?[:D]). If the trend for retired (not just Brits) moving to France continues, then the French Health Ministry is going to need to employ Merlin to make the books balance.  The 2000K is thus for the non top up element of the costs. Frankly, it’s a pittance and the French State is going to have to renegotiate if the country continues to attract large numbers of retired immigrants. Their health costings are currently a disaster in any case.

Who do you think negotiated this figure then? Is this another case of Maggie Thatcher stuffing the rest of Europe? I don't think so. [:D]

In terms of averaging out, I was thinking in terms of  a minimum of 12/15K per person per annum.

You may have been "thinking" in these terms but have you any solid evidence to back these figures up?

  At the rate of 2000K, it’s clearly advantageous for all EU govts to encourage their retired population to emigrate to another EU country. (Is LF and similar Magazines govt financed[6]). All this sounds horrible no doubt (it's not meant to, honest.) but we are talking figures here and the French retired don't appear to move to other EU countries in sufficient numbers to even things out.

Of course they don't.The French don't go anywhere outside France. [:P]

 

On the positive side, France could always transform itself into the retirement home for the EU and be funded accordingly. ''Always look on the bright side of life''[Www]

[/quote]

Best suggestion you've had so far. [8-|]

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="LanguedocGal"]

2000K averages out -in my mind ... Frankly, it’s a pittance and the French State is going to have to renegotiate if the country continues to attract large numbers of retired immigrants.

Their health costings are currently a disaster in any case.

[/quote]

2,000 per head for maybe 500,000 Brits living in France (the higher

figure often bandied about, although no one knows how many Brits there

are), gives a figure of, if I have not messed up on my zeroes, about a

thousand million pounds.  That must be a few more euros.  Based on what

health cost figures for the Brits in France (old or young), or on what proportion of the

total French health care budget would you say means this is "a pittance".  This would require some figures.

And before I put my foot too deeply in my mouth, what exactly do you mean by "a disaster"?  Obviously it is underfunded, but then most health care systems are.  But when I see what you mean, and you have mentioned this in at least two other posts on this thread, I can maybe reply, as I don't want to jump to conclusions.  I might agree, I just don't know what a disaster is.  I am assuming this would require some comparison with other similar countries as well as their health costs and quality of care.

[Patf]

This figure of £2000 only applies to people with E forms 121 and 106. Possibly other E forms. Other british immigrants are paying into the french system with a percentage of their income. It does seem to be a very small amount but surely the total has been negotiated between the two countries, taking into account the fact that french immigrants in Britain will receive care under the british health system. Pat.

[LanguedocGal]

Benjamin wrote, ''You may have been "thinking" in these terms but have you any solid evidence to back these figures up?''

NO, but does anyone have any 'solid evidence' to disprove it?[:D]

Seriously, my estimated figures are based on prices seen in a few Languedoc hospitals and clinics. Don’t worry, I’m not a hospital inspector and I avoid Doctors unless dragged there but if a friend is in a clinique/hospital, I’ll visit and ask questions. Prices vary of course but if a night’s stay in one hospital costs 350 or 600 (excluding treatment costs), it soon adds up even if insurance takes care of a %. 

To my horror (because I think I’m invincible[8-)]), I was forcibly hospitalised a few months ago (surreal). Anyway, I noted the costs displayed and  £2000 over a year even for someone who is not seriously ill, isn’t much. If you go to a doctor, the practice rates are displayed too. In hospitals, you should see the forfaits journaliers etc displayed.  It’s quite simple to build up an idea of cost that way. You really don’t need to be Einstein, just nosey. 

So, I don’t have any hard facts and in view of their deficit, I doubt the French health service do either[6]. In some cases, 2000K may barely cover a week’s stay in hospital or clinic, not to mention the rest.

Re the 2000K E121 rate; I do remember reading figures dating back to 2001 that said that the average French person used around 2000 euros on health per annum. It’s possible that the EU121 figures are based on EU/National averages which obviously includes the young and those not in need of any care too. Here, we are only talking about a specific age range so such averages are obviously meaningless. If you really want to know, why not call Brussels and find out? They are there to serve us or is that some fantasy?

There I go trying to think again. It always gets me into trouble.[:D]

[Patf]

LG - didn't you receive a written statement after your hospitalisation from the CPAM giving you details of costs of your stay and % paid by them?  Our CPAM gave separate figures for surgical intervention, medical and nursing care, forfaits journaliers etc. This raises another issue on the cost of running the service as the administrative costs of sending out all theses documents must be huge. The treatment I had last year worked out at roughly 3000euros per week including everything. I had quite a big bill to pay as we have no top-up. Pat.

[Patf]

LG - didn't you receive a written statement after your hospitalisation from the CPAM giving you details of costs of your stay and % paid by them?  Our CPAM gave separate figures for surgical intervention, medical and nursing care, forfaits journaliers etc. This raises another issue on the cost of running the service as the administrative costs of sending out all theses documents must be huge. The treatment I had last year worked out at roughly 3000euros per week including everything. Some things were covered 100%, some only 60-70% some not at all. I had quite a big bill to pay as we have no top-up. Pat. Sorry about the duplication - I pressed the wrong button.

[LanguedocGal]

TV

I didn’t think anyone had to agree or disagree, as this is a discussion forum[8-)].

I say a pittance because – see above.

Disaster : because the govt, finanicial press and experts state non stop that there is a deficit of over 2 milliards and that it’s a huge problem. Trying to reduce health costs has already seen the introduction for example of medecin traitant and encouraging the population to use generic brands of medication. They will do much more or have to find the extra money from somewhere. Not so easy if the economy is not top. Do you doubt the funding crisis and if so why? I’d be happy to believe you.

Why the deficit? They underestimate the cost of the care/service and the demand/ poor management (who knows but it exists, so it has to be dealt with). You mention under-funding. Where does that come from? Why do you think this deficit exists, then? I don’t understand why you talk about comparative figures with other countries. What has that to do with the French Health Service and it’s deficit? We are not discussing a better or worst health service/system in which case I would understand the need for comparative figures. PatF has explained the 2000K. As for the 500,000 Brit population: I’m one of those who believes it’s way overestimated (holiday home owners are not residents) but we are all free to believe whatever we want.

However, irrespective of how many zeros that implied with the half a million, it would still be £2000 per person and even if only 400,000 needed treatment in any given year, that would only provide an extra £500 extra per person per annum, therefore, I don’t see the importance of the zeros.

If  you know how the system is costed and why there is such a huge deficit, please say.

[LanguedocGal]

Pat

Yes, I got the breakdowns but I always look at other prices to get a general idea. I refused surgery and discharged myself the following day (I never claimed to be intelligent [:$]), so I didn’t have anything ‘major’ carried out. My figure was based on if I had accepted all that was offered.  The nurses and facilities were great – specialist not so.

The cheapest forfaits journaliers in our local public hospital and a few private clinics, is 16 euros per night (excluding treatment of course). This is the price a private patient pays too. Call me sceptical but in view of the nurses and doctors and the facilities, how do they arrive at this rate and how much does it really cost?  The same applies to other charges too. Perhaps a French person on his forum can explain the funding process? I believe healthcare should be available for free or very cheap but for this to continue, it needs to be properly costed. Based on my experience, it’s not surprising that there is a huge deficit.

[TreizeVents]

[quote user="LanguedocGal"]

If  you know how the system is costed and why there is such a huge deficit, please say.

[/quote]

I do not doubt the fact that there is more spent on health care than the health care industry's "income".  Not for a moment.  We agree.  But this not "a disaster", it is a policy choice.

The government has decided to spend the money they have (and not to raise taxes on profits or for the rich) on other things, like motorways, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, tax breaks for the rich (impot sur fortune tax cuts will cost the state about 5 billion next year if Sarko does it like he says he will) and nuclear power, etc.  They could decide to spend it on health care.  They don't.  These are policy decisions.  Taken by duly elected public officials and their advisors.  The doctors in Britain, for example, get paid HUGE amounts more than the ones here.  There is no "logic" to that, its just policy choices over a period of time.  What I object to is the notion that "a deficit" means that somehow the health service is not well run.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.  That's where you have to have comparative information about other health systems and their outcomes.  But if health care is not something that "runs out", like Playstations or a particular brand of clothes, then it has to be funded.  Its not presently part of the game to say to a sick person, "Oops, you'll have to die, our budget ran out yesterday for your disease".  Well, it is, but its disguised.  Its not a private good, its a common good, a public good.  The idea is not a profit, its a public service ... so far.  That's the quick answer.

Personally I think the medicin traitant and generic medicines are a good management reforms.  If they could only re-educate the doctors and patients not to expect to come away with a load of prescriptions for pills, then we could save loads more.  And if the doctors were not treated like the new priests by the French we would also be in better shape.  And if they were a bit more open to low cost complimentary medicine, we would save even more.  I am sure we could all go on.  The point is that health care is, at present, something you get regardless of of income.  It is shared, a public good.

We do agree as well that changes are needed. I have never seen or heard of an organisation that does not have management problems that people try to solve.  This is normal.  And the health care sphere is not exempt.  In France, In Britain, anywhere.  We agree there too.