Tax on top up health policies.

[Benjamin]

I don't know if I've read this somewhere recently or just dreamed it up but have the Government introduced a new tax on health top up policies?

[giantpanda]

Hi!

That has been introduced in 2008 for 2009, and has been discussed on other Forums;

Basically in the beginning it was to reduce the " profits of the top-ups ", and one could then have the impression that that would have no impact on the top-up prices.

However now, it has been written tat prices of top-ups could increase from 3% to 8%, and one of the reasons was the tax.

In general you have to expect that the State will push over Health Insurance costs to the top-ups to try to reduce the deficits.

One of the possible openings which is being considered ( not necessarily in 2009 ) would be to make part of the ALD ( Affection de Longue durée ) coverage ( so called 100%) means tested, because the spending represent 67% of Health Insurance costs, for something like 15% of the total patients.

Yours,

giantpanda

[Benjamin]

Thanks for the information.

I've just found the original thread.

http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1489746/ShowPost.aspx

[Benjamin]

[quote user="giantpanda"]

One of the possible openings which is being considered ( not necessarily in 2009 ) would be to make part of the ALD ( Affection de Longue durée ) coverage ( so called 100%) means tested, because the spending represent 67% of Health Insurance costs, for something like 15% of the total patients.

Yours,

giantpanda

[/quote]

Just re-read your final paragraph. Surely that's exactly how insurance is supposed to work? Nobody gets back exactly what they put in. Some times you win but mostly you lose.  [:D]

[Tony F Dordogne]

[quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="giantpanda"]

One of the possible openings which is being considered ( not necessarily in 2009 ) would be to make part of the ALD ( Affection de Longue durée ) coverage ( so called 100%) means tested, because the spending represent 67% of Health Insurance costs, for something like 15% of the total patients.

Yours,

giantpanda
[/quote]

Just re-read your final paragraph. Surely that's exactly how insurance is supposed to work? Nobody gets back exactly what they put in. Some times you win but mostly you lose.  [:D]

[/quote]

This was one of the proposals floated by the French Government last year but very quickly withdrawn (within a week) when the level of opposition to such a move started to form.

Think this was a step too far and was only ever floated for discussion I seem to recall.

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="Tony F Dordogne"]

[quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="giantpanda"]

One of the possible openings which is being considered ( not necessarily in 2009 ) would be to make part of the ALD ( Affection de Longue durée ) coverage ( so called 100%) means tested, because the spending represent 67% of Health Insurance costs, for something like 15% of the total patients.

Yours,

giantpanda
[/quote]

Just re-read your final paragraph. Surely that's exactly how insurance is supposed to work? Nobody gets back exactly what they put in. Some times you win but mostly you lose.  [:D]

[/quote]

This was one of the proposals floated by the French Government last year but very quickly withdrawn (within a week) when the level of opposition to such a move started to form.

Think this was a step too far and was only ever floated for discussion I seem to recall.

[/quote]

I think what GP means is that the spending on ALD is 67% of the health budget(not health insurance)  but only concerns 15% of the population. So the Govt were going to try and have the ALD 100% reembursement means tested so that the better off would have to pay( presumably thro their top up assurance) and so the cost of mutuels would rise for every one.

[Benjamin]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"][quote user="Tony F Dordogne"]

[quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="giantpanda"]

One of the possible openings which is being considered ( not necessarily in 2009 ) would be to make part of the ALD ( Affection de Longue durée ) coverage ( so called 100%) means tested, because the spending represent 67% of Health Insurance costs, for something like 15% of the total patients.

Yours,

giantpanda

[/quote]

Just re-read your final paragraph. Surely that's exactly how insurance is supposed to work? Nobody gets back exactly what they put in. Some times you win but mostly you lose.  [:D]

[/quote]

This was one of the proposals floated by the French Government last year but very quickly withdrawn (within a week) when the level of opposition to such a move started to form.

Think this was a step too far and was only ever floated for discussion I seem to recall.

[/quote]

I think what GP means is that the spending on ALD is 67% of the health budget(not health insurance)  but only concerns 15% of the population. So the Govt were going to try and have the ALD 100% reembursement means tested so that the better off would have to pay( presumably thro their top up assurance) and so the cost of mutuels would rise for every one.

[/quote]

I muddied the water by using the term "insurance". What I am trying to say is that this is exactly the nature of benefit payments (for want of a better expression).

Carry this along logically; and if you have the means to pay for private education then you have to stop sending your kids to State schools.

We don't have kids but we pay part of our taxes towards schooling (I have no problem with that by the way).

[parsnips]

Hi,

   The reason given by the government for this tax was that the mutuelles and insurance companies have amassed a huge surplus over recent years ,and also spend far more %wise  on administration than the state system, and could afford to pay the tax themselves, but as is usual with such things they have chosen to pass on the tax costs to their clients and hang on to their surplus.

[Benjamin]

[quote user="parsnips"]Hi,

   The reason given by the government for this tax was that the mutuelles and insurance companies have amassed a huge surplus over recent years ,and also spend far more %wise  on administration than the state system, and could afford to pay the tax themselves, but as is usual with such things they have chosen to pass on the tax costs to their clients and hang on to their surplus.

[/quote]

Precisely my reason for asking the question. Our anniversary for our top up is December 1, when we had an increase of 7%. This has now been followed by a further 3% in our January payment so we're effectively paying 10% more than last November.