Re: A different approach to getting healthcare in France

[Will]

Not being a lawyer, as I suspect you are not either, I cannot comment on the legalities or answer your question specifically.

However, turning it round slightly, the rule you quote would seem to give carte blanche to citizens of the newer European states to go and reside in, say, Britain or France, and receive full health and social security benefits. Just the sort of thing that certain sections of the British media (not to mention the French) were so up in arms about when EU expansion was being talked about.

I don't know the date of the rule you quote, but would strongly suspect that it might pre-date, and thus have been modified by, the 2006 directive at the heart of this whole debate. That made the right of residence conditional on being able to support oneself and not be a burden on the host state's health and social security services.

Although many feel the French are being unfair to the British, I think it would be even more unfair for Brussels to apply residence conditions to just, say, Poles or Serbs, rather than universally to all Europeans.

[Will]

Interesting indeed. The 2006 decision I was thinking about, on checking, was not actually a directive, but a judgement:

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DECISION

On the 23 March 2006 there was a judgement (affaire C-408/3) by the Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes (CJCE) which is  important as regards the right of citizens of Member States to reside in another Member State. The CJCE also reiterated the two conditions required for such residence. 

Firstly, the aforementioned citizens’ right of residence, as granted by the Maasstricht Treaty, is a fundamental, personal and immediate right.

Secondly, only two conditions are required of the aforementioned citizens in order that they can reside in a Member State other than their own, the two conditions being: They must have health cover and they must have sufficient resources to support themselves without recourse to the social assistance of the host Member State.

So can we take it from the above that the European Court has overruled the European Parliament? They certainly seem to be in contradiction, and the Sarkozy law seems to follow the European Court ruling. I have to say that I cannot be 100% certain of the validity of the above, because it did originate from somebody with a vested interest, i.e. selling health insurance policies. On the other hand I would have thought that deliberately misinterpreting EU law for commercial gain would be a pretty serious matter?

I agree that there would certainly seem to be enough inconsistencies in what is coming out of Brussels to seek clarification. Maybe an MEP would be the best person to take this up?

[Chris]

Please don't bother reading this if you want good news or new facts . It's just that I too have been pondering in a non lawyer-like way.

The phrases "must have health cover" and "not be a burden" and "sufficient resources" keep popping up in  much of the verbage.

Some of my ponderings, for what they are worth:

When we applied, years ago for our Cartes de Sejour we had to show sufficient reources etc, and we were granted cards. Someone must have decided that we had sufficient resources.

We are not a burden in that we complete tax returns and URSSAF forms each year, and consequently we contribute to the CMU in exactly the same way as all non-active and active French citizens with sufficient resources.

Let us remember that much of this brouhaha has been aimed at weeding out those who have managed to so 'organise' their finances so as to avoid contributing, and quite right too!

(It is a pity that similar measures cannot be taken in the UK, but that is not our problem!)

Perhaps the problem has been caused through the sloppy use of the word 'burden' which I believe makes more sense when applied to the group of non-contributors.  An affilliate of the state health system cannot be described as a burden after making the contributions demanded, otherwise it would apply to all those residing legally in France and negates the whole purpose of a public health service. If it's not sufficient,do the sums and ask us to pay even more!

Sufficient resources surely means with an income sufficient to trigger contributions to the CMU.  Those who arrive here with no apparent income are a burden, in that they are too 'poor' to contribute and  so they qualify for the gamut of state aid including CMU etc. This is an understable position for any government to have, particularly during this period of expansion, provided it is within the framework of national and european law, which for me would be a voyage into the fog to interpret.

Provided revenue is legally gained, I cannot understand what difference it makes whether it derives from active employment or non active  sources such as a pension. It smacks of a neo nazi pique at those who have retired early and contrary to the politicians' ( both Sarko and Brown)  drive to keep us all working until we drop

I am optimimistic that all will become clear and be sorted.  There are too many inconsistencies that are shouting to be challenged.

On the other side of the Channel, why does UK only fund 106 holders for 2 year?  If we were still in UK they would pick up the tab for medical  costs whether we paid NI contributions or not.  We are not costing them a penny after  the 2 years as we are here paying our own way here.  Why cannot the UK continue coughing up; they will do when we reach 60/65.  Make us continue to pay UK NI contributions if that's is a problem for them!  It is not logical and unjustifiable, but I suppose that will have to be another battle!!

We are weeks away from being 60 and 'Senior Management's' E121 is in the system, so we shall, I hope, be OK (provided the E107 works for me!), but this fight involves principles that cannot be ignored and if someone cleverer than I decides to take them all on, I shall be there, with a contribution to the 'fund' as required!!!

My Regiment's motto was "nec aspera terrent" - "neither do hardships deter", so let's up and 'at 'em!! (Sorry about that I got quite carried away!)

Chris

[ali-cat]

Chris

Just posted something similar on the main healthcare entitlement discussion thread.  There are clearly major inconsistencies for which we as a relatively small group appear to be paying and I don't see either government voluntarily wanted to fight our corner.

Ali's OH