Re: Latest Health care Entitlement discussion

[Jay]

"you can only prove residency which is determined by tax returns"

We moved here in August 02 and into our home in the

November. Our CdeS’s were issued the same month but the start date was not till

May 03 and they expire in June 08 (i.e. after the 5 year period).

Coincidentally (or not as the case may be) our E106 ran out in the May of 03

and we joined the CMU at that time and were issued a CV. Like others here I

thought (because of the double taxation thing) that it was not necessary to

complete a tax return immediately as we paid tax in the UK. However in the

January of 03 I received a tax form then shortly afterwards a registered letter

telling me I had 30 days to complete the return or else!

My point is that I am not totally convinced that determining

the date for residency is wholly concerned with the date you filled in your

first tax form or the date of issue of a CdeS. In my opinion it will be a much

more complex operation. In my case I feel the only reason a tax return was

issued so speedily was the fact that CPAM required proof of income. It could be

construed that we were resident in 02 (tax return related to that year), or

June 03 (the date our CdeS was issued) or in fact the date we joined the CMU. We

consider it to be November 02 when we moved into our home. All in all it is

bound to be complex and many of us will have a fight on our hands as no doubt

the onus of proof will be on us. Even a few months without a CV could be very

expensive.

[Ron Avery]

Jay

In the last couple of years, I think it was around the time that the rules about CGT were altered, the definition of resident was changed  to mean tax resident.  That is why a tax return was all that was needed to send to CPAM for proof of continued residency.

However, if the tax people sent you a demand for a tax return for 2002 in January 2003, the French knew that you were resident in France at some point in 2002 didn't they?  Or did you mean January 2004 as tax returns for 2002 were not sent out until May 2003?

[woolybanana]

Ron, baby, leave it. You cannot change the world.

[Cat]

Wooly, baby, this is a serious discussion (picture wagging finger here).

[JJ]

Sorry, am I missing the point here, or have I missed some vital news. There is all this discussion about being resident for 5 years to qualify for the CMU. I was under the impression that the changes were going to affect all persons inactif, including French Nationals?

 

[krusty]

JJ   read the top line ...it is aimed at brits http://www.securite-sociale.fr/comprendre/europe/europe/cmu_inactifs.htm

[Jay]

JJ - If the changes were aimed at French Nationals we wouldn't be discussing this. The country would be at a standstill, there would be riots in the streets and burning of cars in Paris!!

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Jay"]JJ - If the changes were aimed at French Nationals we wouldn't be discussing this. The country would be at a standstill, there would be riots in the streets and burning of cars in Paris!!
[/quote]Don't be too convinced that this won't happen.  Although we're amongst the first to be hit by this, M. Sakozy is aiming directly at the early retired, including his own nationals.  I don't see peace and tranquility here for the next few months, or even years.

[makfai]

[quote user="JJ"]

Sorry, am I missing the point here, or have I missed some vital news. There is all this discussion about being resident for 5 years to qualify for the CMU. I was under the impression that the changes were going to affect all persons inactif, including French Nationals?

 

[/quote]

 

The policy is issued pursuant to DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States so it does not apply to Nationals of those States.

 

However, in the framework of utter clarity in which all this has been launched [Www] you may be amused to see how this initiative appears to have been peppered with errors from day one! 

During my research I noticed that the original directive had been published as DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC at

 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_158/l_15820040430en00770123.pdf

but that a correction had led to the Directive been re-issued in full.  In this the Directive was referred to as DIRECTIVE 2004/58/EC

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_229/l_22920040629en00350048.pdf

I asked the Eur-Lex Helpdesk if the reference was correct or an error and they said

----- Original Message -----

From: "OPOCE EUR-LEX HELP EXT" <eurlex-helpdesk-online@publications.europa.eu>

To: ..........................................

Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:00 AM

Subject: RE: Directive Query

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for having contacted the Eur-Lex Helpdesk.
It really looks like a mistake, we will forward your message to the
production of the Official Journal and will keep you informed.

Kind regards,

Nuno Mesquita
Publications Office
Eur-Lex Helpdesk 

Now I am not a superstitious person - touch  wood - but this looks to have been jinxed from the start!

[Benjamin]

Jean-Claude is 59 and works for Aerospatiale. He's due to retire at the end of March next year when he reaches 60.

Unfortunately he's just heard from old Pierre who owns the local bar that François Fillon's Government has just disclosed legislation that means Jean-Claude will not now be eligible for retirement until March 2013.

He returns home to his beloved Yvette. " Ah well, ma chérie, we'll have to delay our move to our retirement bungalow at St Cyprien for another five years.

This situation would never be allowed to happen in a month of bl**dy dimanches so why do the French Government think they can impose this retrospective legislation on EU nationals living in France? It is totally unjust and unfair that anyone already resident in France should have their access to the French health care system changed in any way.

This is not new thinking and has been expressed by other people at times throughout this thread. The reason for bringing it up again is that there appear to be certain interest groups among posters that can see little chinks of light in the implementation of this legislation. Phrases sush as " we'll only have to fund ourselves with private insurance for 15 months until we're due our E121's" or "next year we'll be able to prove five years residency so we'll be back in the system then".

There is only one group of people who are, quite rightly in my opinion, guaranteed to remain in the French health care system, and that is holders of E121's. For everyone else the fight is still on.

I ask all of you whether you are directly affected or not, please don't give up on any effort you are making whether it be lobbying MEP's or writing to the Press or simply trying to garner support for this cause to continue to do so.

There is only one just result that should be acceptable to any of those people already resident in France and that is that this new legislation should not result in one single  non French EU national being kicked out of the French health care system.

Bon courage.

[cooperlola]

Thanks Benjamin.  I see a huge number of people who will now just be saying "I can live with that."  This is now becoming a hot topic at EU level, and there's some momentum building.  We need to back this up and carry on helping our representatives to represent us. By just accepting our fate, we leave ourselves open to all sorts of problems which are not yet solved.  Many of us have a "breathing space" until 31.3.08.  Think very carefully about what will happen to you if you develop a serious illness or chronic condition in the meantime.  Unless the whole of the EU faces up to its own stated ideals of free movement within our union and what this implies - the healthcare issue will not be the last one to affect us.  Please do not give up the fight.

[Clair]

[quote user="Benjamin"]Jean-Claude is 59 and works for Aerospatiale. He's due to retire at the end of March next year when he reaches 60.

Unfortunately he's just heard from old Pierre who owns the local bar that François Fillon's Government has just disclosed legislation that means Jean-Claude will not now be eligible for retirement until March 2013.

He returns home to his beloved Yvette. " Ah well, ma chérie, we'll have to delay our move to our retirement bungalow at St Cyprien for another five years.

This situation would never be allowed to happen in a month of bl**dy dimanches so why do the French Government think they can impose this retrospective legislation on EU nationals living in France? It is totally unjust and unfair that anyone already resident in France should have their access to the French health care system changed in any way.[/quote]

Actually, the French government is trying to do just that to those who are currently allowed to retire early, but I won't go into details here, as it's not the right place.

I don't know if these have already been posted... They are commercial press releases about the changes to healthcare

http://www.responsesource.com/releases/

http://www.aboutproperty.co.uk/news/overseas-property/property-in-france/healthcare-reform-brits-living-in-france-

[cooperlola]

Clair, I agree.  And I think this is the place to bring it up.  This is not just about us.  (Goodness I sound like a broken record, sorry!)

I have seen those articles and believe that they are very dangerous.  This individual has a commercial interest in not frightening off anybody who is thinking of moving here.  The average age of the people involved is likely to be nearer 60 than 50 and I know from my own research that the insurance figure quoted here is totally bogus.  Cover anything like equating to that which one gets from the state healthcare system, is more like 6,000 euros for a couple like us (one early, one late 50s) and pre-existing conditions are not included - plus there's an excess on each claim.  Even if you just have say, astma, then you are looking at anything up to 1k a year for control drugs for that one condition, and any illness you might have as a result could be questioned by the insurance company. 

Who knows what kinds of arguments we are all likely to face with our insurance companies in the future?  If an asthmatic, for example, gets pneumonia, will they have to argue the toss with an insurance company as to whether that relates to an existing condition?  Dealing with your local CPAM is going to seem like a doddle in comparison with what we all may face in the future.

[BJSLIV]

 Unless the whole of the EU faces up to its own stated ideals of free movement

But in reality the EU has no real interest in the free movement of Inactives, the real interest is the movement of workers which can  keep down wage inflation in those countries which have a shortage of labour.

[cooperlola]

Mmm. Maybe.  That's not the thinking of the MEP's representative, whom I spoke to.  Their point being that if people work in member states where they were not born, this issue will affect them in the future too.  200,000  plus French people contribute to the NHS as they work in Britain, not into the French system.  That's one small group and there are loads of others - for one thing the area surrounding Brussels is itself full of expatriates from all the member states, whose life is there, but who may wish to return "home" eventually.  What happens to their healthcare when they return home, if it is not transferrable? There is a minefield of confliciting healthcare legislation (not least because the UK deals differently with its residents in this regard, from the way other states do) which will explode before long.  Our tiny group is just the tip of the iceberg and the issues are very much related.

[BJSLIV]

One point that hasn't been picked up is that the Government has proposed that French early retirees will have to pay 7.5% CSG on their pensions, as if they were still at work, until they reach the normal retirement age. I assume that it could also apply to EU citizens in  preretirement.

[Rob]

[quote user="BJSLIV"]

 Unless the whole of the EU faces up to its own stated ideals of free movement

But in reality the EU has no real interest in the free movement of Inactives, the real interest is the movement of workers which can  keep down wage inflation in those countries which have a shortage of labour.

[/quote]

I wonder if BJSLIV does not have a point. IFP have made a similar point on their site this morning, vis:

Now is the time for those of you campaiging against this law to write to the French Government to try and blunt the impact of the law with evidence of the type of cases that should be allowed to pass through the gates. In particular, the campaign needs to expose their naive belief in the ability of the private insurance industry to be able to offer cover to those with a pre-existing medical condition or disability.

Efforts to try and persuade the EU to do something are likely to be futile.

http://forums.french-property.com/public-services-f10/rule-changes-on-health-cover-t1062-10.html?sid=0d76f7b4de3245445245cf3ef6e61f47

 

[cooperlola]

[quote user="BJSLIV"]One point that hasn't been picked up is that the Government has proposed that French early retirees will have to pay 7.5% CSG on their pensions, as if they were still at work, until they reach the normal retirement age. I assume that it could also apply to EU citizens in  preretirement.[/quote]Can you enlighten me a little, BJSLIV?

[makfai]

[quote user="makfai"] 

During my research I noticed that the original directive had been published as DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC at

 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_158/l_15820040430en00770123.pdf

but that a correction had led to the Directive been re-issued in full.  In this the Directive was referred to as DIRECTIVE 2004/58/EC

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_229/l_22920040629en00350048.pdf

[/quote]

Clarification received

 

----- Original Message -----

From: OPOCE EUR-LEX HELP EXT

To: ...............................

Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:08 AM

Subject: RE: Directive Query

Dear Sir,

 

In fact the original document has been corrected by a corrigendum published on the OJ L 197 from 2005 page 34:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_197/l_19720050728en00340034.pdf

 

There it is said that we should read 2004/38 instead of 2004/58, but the way that european law works does not allow us to change the documents, for that reason we still have to refer to it with the original title.

When the document will be replaced, it can be done, but not now.

 

Kind regards,

Nuno Mesquita
Publications Office
Eur-Lex Helpdesk

[BJSLIV]

Can you enlighten me a little, BJSLIV?

On further examination it's only a relatively minor change which won't affect us . Any UK citizens, living in France who receive a pension but are not covered by E forms  are already liable a levy of 7.5% or 8.2% on their pensions. The proposed change simply abolishes a concession for preretraitees from French employers.

[Benjamin]

Clair

I was aware of the comments attributed to Nicolas Sarkozy regarding sorting out the French early retirees. It remains to be seen when/if the French Government do make an attempt, if the older generation have the stomach for a long drawn out battle in the same way that they were guaranteed to react in the 70's and 80's.

I somehow don't see a mob of geriatric Brits torching a few sans permis in the back streets of Sarlat are going to have the same effect in this debacle.

One issue that I would like to return to are the glaring inaccuracies in the aboutproperty.co.uk site you quote.

Previously Brits moving to France could make voluntary contributions to

the Couverture Maladie Universelle (CMU) – the French healthcare system

This as we all know is absolute poppycock.

and

Finally, UK nationals qualify if they are working France and are therefore contributing to the French economy.

Although Ron has been saying we should wait until there is an official definition of inactive I seriously object to this statement implying that anyone not working is not contributing to the French economy.

We invested a sizeable chunk of our capital in the French economy when we bought our French house and paid taxes via the Notaire for the privilege of doing so. Further, we continue to make and pay income tax declarations as required on our worldwide income although none of this income is derived in France as well as 11% social charges on unearned income, again which derives outside of France.

Virtually everything we buy in France is subject to TVA and a lot of it at the highest rate of 19.6%.

If this doesn't make a contribution to the French economy then I'm at a loss as to understand what else we inactives can do.

Sorry about this but I've got going now so I'll make my final point.

The French health service is underfunded but it hasn't yet reached the state of collapse as it is bailed out from general taxation income. Look at what I've said above; all of us living here (bar a few exceptions) contribute to the general taxation fund so by definition we are being kicked out of  the French health care system and are then expected to keep subsidising those (mainly Frnch) who remain in it.

Rant over.

[BJSLIV]

There is no point getting worked up about a term in commom usage on both sides of the Channel.

Eg From the Learming and Skills Council

Economically inactive

People who are economically inactive are those who are out of work, and who are either not seeking work or are unavailable to start work.

They can usually be split into those who want a job and those who do not.

 

 

[makfai]

[quote user="BJSLIV"]

There is no point getting worked up about a term in commom usage on both sides of the Channel.

Eg From the Learming and Skills Council

Economically inactive

People who are economically inactive are those who are out of work, and who are either not seeking work or are unavailable to start work.

They can usually be split into those who want a job and those who do not.

 

[/quote]

The UK's term for the those the French catgegorise as 'inactif' is 'self-sufficient person' this term is contained in the UK's Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 1003 The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 and reflects to some extent the wording in Article 7 of the original EU Directive

'Union citizens [who] 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;'

 

 

 

[malheureusement]

Why doesn't someone set up a website in France and employ all the ex-pats living in France who cannot get private medical insurance?

Say the website employs them part time but enough hours to get into the French system and so qualify for health cover.

They are paid by the website to sit at home and write articles which are posted on the site but others must pay to read them.

However much they are going to be paid in salary each month they must spend on paying to read other articles before pay day.

The website is non profit making.

Any tax costs etc on a part time job must be cheaper than paying private medical insurance?

 

 

 

 

 

[Danny]

Deleted by me