My health "Human Rights " in France

[Budfrog]

That doesn't mean that what happens in the UK should happen over here ???

Well as a European Union there is every reason why systems should be standardised and the access to healthcare should be the same in every member state with robust budgetary transfer systems or simple reciprocal agreements.

For people who have paid into a system, be it NI in the UK or similar systems in other member states, there needs to be a system of unilateral health care to facilitate freedom of movement and that does not exist at the present time. To be expected to take out private healthcare insurance is a double whammy for many people who have already paid huge sums of NI and Tax.

If it is against an individuals human rights to deny them healthcare in the UK then the same should apply elsewhere though it may need a test case to change European Law in the patients favour ... the sooner the better as far as I am concerned as we don't want to benchmark the USA in any way when it comes to looking after sick or vulnerable individuals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217011/GPs-treat-foreigners-new-guidelines.html

[Pickles]

I think that the right to emergency health treatment is different to the right to ongoing health treatment. The EU directive on freedom of movement places limitations on that freedom: it is not an absolute right.

I think that this is the current version:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004L0038R%2801%29:EN:HTML

which basically imposes the condition that non-active citizens must not be an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host country and imposes the requirement of full sickness cover

[quote]Article 7

Right of residence for more than three months

1. All Union citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory

of another Member State for a period of longer than three months if

they:

(a) are workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State; or

(b) have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members

not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host

Member State during their period of residence and have comprehensive

sickness insurance cover in the host Member State; or

(c) are enrolled at a private or public establishment, accredited or

financed by the host Member State on the basis of its legislation or

administrative practice, for the principal purpose of following a course

of study, including vocational training; and

have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State and

assure the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by

such equivalent means as they may choose, that they have sufficient

resources for themselves and their family members not to become a burden

on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their

period of residence; or

(d) are family members accompanying or joining a Union citizen who

satisfies the conditions referred to in points (a), (b) or (c).

2. The right of residence provided for in paragraph 1 shall extend to

family members who are not nationals of a Member State, accompanying or

joining the Union citizen in the host Member State, provided that such

Union citizen satisfies the conditions referred to in paragraph 1(a),

(b) or (c).

3. For the purposes of paragraph 1(a), a Union citizen who is no longer a

worker or self-employed person shall retain the status of worker or

self-employed person in the following circumstances:

(a) he/she is temporarily unable to work as the result of an illness or accident;

(b) he/she is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after having

been employed for more than one year and has registered as a job-seeker

with the relevant employment office;

(c) he/she is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after completing

a fixed-term employment contract of less than a year or after having

become involuntarily unemployed during the first twelve months and has

registered as a job-seeker with the relevant employment office. In this

case, the status of worker shall be retained for no less than six

months;

(d) he/she embarks on vocational training. Unless he/she is

involuntarily unemployed, the retention of the status of worker shall

require the training to be related to the previous employment.

4. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1(d) and 2 above, only the

spouse, the registered partner provided for in Article 2(2)(b) and

dependent children shall have the right of residence as family members

of a Union citizen meeting the conditions under 1(c) above. Article 3(2)

shall apply to his/her dependent direct relatives in the ascending

lines and those of his/her spouse or registered partner.[/quote]

If the UK wishes to impose more favourable conditions, it is free to do so: however it appears that the UK is doing so without ever debating the issue.

[AnOther]

[quote user="Budfrog"]Well as a European Union there is every reason why systems should be standardised and the access to healthcare should be the same in every member state with robust budgetary transfer systems or simple reciprocal agreements.[/quote]That unfortunately is a utopian ideal which none of us are likely to see in our lifetimes or perhaps even our children's.

Who's standard would you suggest was adopted I wonder ?

The French one where the level of care is regarded as the best in the western world - but can come at significant personal expense, or the UK's unique and completely free at the point of delivery NHS which BTW already has a huge question mark over it as a viable model in it's current form, and when you have decided how would you propose convincing the French to switch to the NHS model or the British to the French ?

This simplification obviously takes no account of the myriad systems in the other EU states which compound the issue effectively into an impossibility.

In any case, within the EU's rights of freedom of movement for workers and goods, reciprocal health care not only exists but actually works.

[Budfrog]

Of course nothing will happen if it is only the UK that deems that it violates a persons human rights for healthcare to be withheld ... however if Brussels decides this to be the case then France and all the other member states will have to fall into line.

IMO NI and Tax contributions paid should be taken into account ... but that is just a personal view and in itself would disadvantage those who had not contributed. As with most systems there are ways around it ... and it's the honest straightforward people who usually end up by paying the price.

[EuroTrash]

"Budfrog wrote the following post at 15/10/2012 14:59:

Of course nothing will happen if it is only the UK that deems that it violates a persons human rights for healthcare to be withheld ... however if Brussels decides this to be the case then France and all the other member states will have to fall into line.

IMO NI and Tax contributions paid should be taken into account ... but that is just a personal view and in itself would disadvantage those who had not contributed. As with most systems there are ways around it ... and it's the honest straightforward people who usually end up by paying the price. "

I don't think the question was about healthcare being withheld, was it? simply, the OP thinks it violates human rights to have to contribute a small proportion towards the cost. Why ''free' non-urgent medical treatment should be a human right, I'm not really sure. It's very generous of the UK to provide it but it doesn't make it a human right, and the UK may not continue to do so for much longer.