ibis
Banned Member
Posts: 1,376
|
Post by ibis on Jun 23, 2022 19:26:16 GMT 1
Well at least now I know where this 'loi' came from. It is an advisory note from the Ministry de la Santé et de la Prévention (Brigitte Bourguignon was head until last weekend) to CPAMs. It confirms that S1 holders are not considered as affiliated to PUMA and don't have any right to CSS. Maybe, if those directly affected by the withdrawal kick up a fuss, the Ambassadrice will take up the cause? Maybe not. If anyone wants a copy of the note citing the relevant Articles, please feel free to PM me. Such a small percentage of the population... Come on!!!!!
Good luck to "all the poor english in France" to get their cake and eat it also...
|
|
|
|
Post by houpla on Jun 23, 2022 19:58:00 GMT 1
It's true that, until I got involved with FB, I'd no idea how many well-off, typically arrogant Yanks lived in France. One more aspect of the country that could easily convince me to move on.
|
|
suein56
Member
Southern Morbihan 56 Brittany
Posts: 7,075
|
Post by suein56 on Jun 23, 2022 20:55:51 GMT 1
It's true that, until I got involved with FB, I'd no idea how many well-off, typically arrogant Yanks lived in France. One more aspect of the country that could easily convince me to move on. There are a huge number apparently .. though not all of them are well-off. Many of them come here after seeing the proliferation of TV programmes and adverts that typically concentrate on the free to low-cost health-care available for US pensioners in France. |
|
ibis
Banned Member
Posts: 1,376
|
Post by ibis on Jun 23, 2022 21:24:09 GMT 1
It's true that, until I got involved with FB, I'd no idea how many well-off, typically arrogant Yanks lived in France. One more aspect of the country that could easily convince me to move on. Bye.. |
|
|
|
Post by houpla on Jun 23, 2022 22:02:08 GMT 1
Are you off to a Spanish forum? Cheerio then  |
|
|
|
Post by ForumUser2 on Jun 23, 2022 22:55:15 GMT 1
Yep. Don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.
|
|
|
|
Post by pcpa on Jun 23, 2022 23:51:19 GMT 1
So they still have droits but have to pay the uninsured portion despite being under the revenu threshold for C.S.S., is that correct?
In some way it removes the unfairness of the current system where a French retiree continues to pay healthcare cotisations but a retired UK S1 holder pays nothing. Yes I know they would pay nothing in the UK.
I can see the logic of the decision, the UK is paying via the S1, the person is not affilated to PUMA, before Brexit they could not do anything about the disparity, now they can.
The good news is that were I retirement age I believe I would not qualify for an S1, years ago when I first tried to join the health system a certificate was required of the UK, I think it was an S1 and they would not issue one as I had not paid NIC for a few years due to travelling before settling in France. I had to wing it with an EHIC for many years until the nice M. Hollande decided to bring in PUMA while riding pillion on a motorcycle during Gayetgate!
|
|
|
|
Post by houpla on Jun 24, 2022 7:30:09 GMT 1
It was enshrined in the WA that affiliation to l'Assurance Maladie would continue for existing residents. The options now are to take out a mutuelle, which will be prohibitively expensive for the elderly on low incomes, or wing it.
I don't see why it was unfair before. There are two levels of CSS, two plafonds, one of which involves making contributions to the French state if your resources permit. There is also a forfait for owning your own home.
As you pointed out yourself, S1 holders gain that certificate by virtue of the contributions they've paid in UK, so it's not any more of a hand-out than the State pension.
It did make the difference, for some over here, between being able to manage or not. Tant pis....they'll quite probably opt to go back to UK, penniless, needing housing, sécu, healthcare...and placing even more burden on an already overstretched system. But hey-ho, what do we care about that? We're all right, Jack.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackie on Jun 24, 2022 14:47:54 GMT 1
Are you off to a Spanish forum? Cheerio then  What you mean there’s a forum out there called ‘American idiots in Spain’? |
|
|
|
Post by pcpa on Jun 24, 2022 15:41:45 GMT 1
I don't see why it was unfair before. It was unfair for the reason that I thought I had explained clearly, a French pensioner has to pay cotisations from his retirement income to l'Assurance Maladie, a retired UK S1 holder does not, however if they have any pension income from France then they too have to continue paying cotisations, working just a few hours a week part time could cost you dearly. With regard to C.S.S. the income conditions are the same for both groups. |
|
exile
Member
Massif Central
Posts: 2,560
|
Post by exile on Jun 24, 2022 16:29:48 GMT 1
The "unfair" comment is in itself unfair If you consider the UK State pension is one of the lowest pay-out values in Europe, then that is in itself unfair by your rules. fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/This is 2018 data but the UK pension has not doubled since then. On that basis you might consider that UK pension incomes are below the threshold where health contributions are required and that that contributes to a degree of levelling up between the countries. The simple fact is that different countries require different levels of payment over your working life and afford different benefits on retirement. To suggest therefore that in comparison one is unfair compared to another is a pretty pointless exercise. All you can say is that they are different. I could make the same comments about health coverage during your working life. Working in Germany I had essentially full and free healthcare* paid for through my health insurance contributions. When I was seconded to work in France for 2 years, the rules said my health insurance gave me the same rights as a French worker. In other words my 100% German cover = 70% French cover and I "had to" take out additional insurance to top back up to 100% in France. I could scream about unfairness but to what effect. Those are the rules. Get to live with it. * In fact you paid 10€ for every quarter where you needed to use the facilities as a one off contribution for that quarter. |
|
|
|
Post by houpla on Jun 24, 2022 22:06:41 GMT 1
You're still missing the point about the CSS, pcpa. Income under the lowest plafond qualified anyone living in France in a stable and regular manner for 100% free healthcare. Income under the second (higher) plafond qualified them for subsidised healthcare. They pay a monthly contribution on a sliding, age-related scale. So they are 'contributing', albeit far less than it would cost them for a mutuelle. (This second, contributory level was designed to replace the ACS 'cheque towards a mutuelle' scheme). A lot of S1-holding Brits just exceeded the lower limit because a forfait was applied for owning your own home. Which put them in the second category....cheaper, comprehensive health cover for a contribution. What's unfair about that?
|
|
|
|
Post by pcpa on Jun 24, 2022 23:18:17 GMT 1
There is no point for me to miss, I was simply responding to your comment about you not seeing why it is unfair that a French citizen should continue to pay healthcare cotisations from his pension when a UK pensioner on an S1 didn't when they both recieve the same service from the French system. This has nothing to do with any contribution towards CSS which would be the same for both individuals with equal resources. If you consider the UK State pension is one of the lowest pay-out values in Europe, then that is in itself unfair by your rules. I dont make any rules. The simple fact is that different countries require different levels of payment over your working life and afford different benefits on retirement. To suggest therefore that in comparison one is unfair compared to another is a pretty pointless exercise. All you can say is that they are different. The comparison was not of different countries but retired Brits in France getting healthcare without paying anything from their pensions while French citizens have to pay cotisations. |
|
|
|
Post by pcpa on Jun 24, 2022 23:21:00 GMT 1
Sadly, it's not the UK government that will suffer as a result, but thousands of elderly or younger, low-income families.I assume that the underlined is now known not to be the case and that it only affects S1 holders and only the uninsured "top up" portion of their healthcare costs, is that correct? |
|
|
|
Post by houpla on Jun 25, 2022 6:38:02 GMT 1
No. Depending on the CPAM, it's being applied to anyone with the '99 132' stigma. In a lot of cases, the first anyone knows about it is when labos, clinics and cabinets demand payment.
|
|
