The future for The British Citizen if the vote should fall for Brexit.

The Prime Minister speaks forcibly to The Telegraph. Read https://goo.gl/fWpvUK

Mr.Cameron in the above speaks of Trade.  What is written below is from the viewpoint of a Citizen who was born in 1932.  I remember years of poverty before WWII  even as far back as the jubilee of King George V, the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II, when as a four year old I danced round a celebratory bonfire singing the song of  the Boy Scouts in charge ‘There may be flies on you you you, but the’re no flies on us”.   Within a few years those Scouts were fighting for European civilisation.

I voted in the Referendum of 1975 and knew quite well what we were voting for.

Since the terrible times of 1939-1945 much has changed.  I took advantage of the European Union to retire to live in France.  I celebrate the cementing of European Culture across the nation states.  During my time I have had more irritation with British bureaucratic intransigence than with the French.  What follows is a view of the problems facing those who would follow in our paths.

The Generations of British Citizens to come who might wish to live in other EU States.

Jobs.  Those seeking to be employed would have to obtain some form of work permit. Unskilled workers would find it extremely hard to establish themselves, if it were at all possible. Those wishing to set up businesses – perhaps as plumbers or other technical craftsmen would find it near impossible.

Money exchange – There would be no guarantee that State pensions would be paid without  change -  British Law – The Pension Act 2014 clause 20 - permits the Minister of DWP to freeze pensions paid to citizens who live abroad. The clause was included despite protests.

All money transfers -The individual EU States could impose a tax on money coming from the UK.  It has happened before. 

The British Government could impose ceilings on money going abroad – it has done so before – Mrs Thatcher removed such a ceiling.

Without the protection afforded by EU regulations nothing is certain.  This will be labelled scare mongering by Brexiteers – but what is certain is the uncertainty. If Brexit should fall, all would depend on negotiations between the UK and the other 27 States, taking years.

Uncertainty will cause the value of the £ to fall.

Possibilities of other restrictions.  With the lifting of the protection of the EU regulations, each EU State is able to act independently.  This opens the way for restrictions to be imposed on Bank accounts of foreigners or on their property or any other discriminatory taxes and laws, without any EU wide protection..  The incipient freedom to open UK based bank accounts and use UK financial institutions would falter.

Medical Care.  Again it is the EU regulation [883/2004] which establishes the right to provision of health care across the EU.  This is at two levels.

1. The European Health Insurance Card –EHIC .  This is issued by the citizen’s ‘Competent State’ for Social Security to all travellers within the EU and entitles such to any emergency treatment for visitors in another State. This would cease.

2. The treatment for resident pensioners and their dependents.  The Medical care is given as though one is a national of the State where the Citizen is resident but the cost of that is borne by the NHS. – (i.e the Social Security of the ‘Competent State’).

Visa requirements  As happens now with Americans who wish to reside in France et alia,  immigrants (for that is what future citizens would be) would be required to demonstrate financial stability. This can affect accompanying spouses and the visits of Family and Friends.  Visas often have time limits.

Citizenship.  The possibility of voting for and serving on local communal councils will cease.  British citizens will no longer be considered as normal members of the community. This will cause changes of approach at any public department where  public servants operate.

Border checks.  British Citizens would have to pass through NON-EU gates at the EU borders which would be likely to prove onerous with more detailed inspection.

Nationality British Citizens would cease to be European Citizens protected under EU law. They would be immigrants and foreigners. Britons living abroad could apply for nationality of  the country in which they reside, but it is an expensive and lengthy process and Austria does not permit dual citizenship. Surrendering British Nationality would be foolish.

Brian Cave with the help of Frank Jackson.

Health costs and Democracy for Citizens in Europe

To go to the Index and start click here

More comment on the Government Green paper

Concerning support for health costs in the EU

An example of why the Britons Abroad  in Europe and elsewhere  need Democratic Representation.

I appreciate the comments by readers of my circulars which have caused me to consider a further analysis of the situation on the costs of health care in Europe.

It involves a digging out of information in the EU regulations.

The consultative Green Paper is entitled

“Sustaining services, ensuring fairness”

A consultation on migrant access and their financial contribution to NHS provision in England.”

1.   This Green Paper was issued in July with a date of August 28^th for the return of observations.  This is my immediate concern - The situation is unacceptable that people most affected by certain aspects are given no direct knowledge of this green paper, and no time at all to respond!

2.  The title gives no indication whatsoever that the contents also concern the health costs of British pensioners in the EU.  It is only by rare chance in October that I learned of its existence and quick action ensured that the contents were widely known.   

These concerns were particularly and rightly publicised (especially by The Connexion in France) because of the effect on the health costs of the ‘early retirees’ who would have their support for health care in the wider EU removed. 

Since then I have received comments which result in the analysis below.

The British State Pensioner abroad and treatment under the NHS.

The essence of this analysis is the ability of British State pensioners otherwise resident in other States of the EU to receive treatment under the NHS in Britain.

*See further note below for other British State Pensioners in the rest of the World.

At this present time – if you are a British State Pensioner and have at least 10 years of residence in the UK, but you happen now to be resident abroad, you are NOT entitled to free treatment under the NHS.  However many of us have received treatment in the UK.  Maybe only an eye test, sometimes more. 

[Confusion on this is introduced by the fact that the EHIC –health card – is issued by the UK to all British State Pensioners in the EU.  This card requires the UK to pay the health costs of those travelling to another EU State, which is not their resident State! Thus questioning the situation with regard to visits of pensioners to the UK.

Confusion also exists with the EU law which enables any citizen, retired or not, to travel to another State for treatment if that treatment is not available in one’s State of residence.]

The Green Paper in Annex A makes similar observations to some of the above.  It elsewhere suggests that in future the costing of  health for State pensioners in their resident  State within the EU could be thus affected:-

Clause 6.13  “The benefit to the UK of allowing state pensioners to return for their planned treatment would be a discount of 5% from payments to all countries to whom we make lump sum annual payments for our pensioners. “

The second phrase underlined relating to annual payments, refers to the EU Regulation 987/2009  and  to Annex 3 of that regulation.

This lists the States claiming payment for health treatment on the basis of fixed amounts. They are:- IRELAND, SPAIN, ITALY, MALTA, THE NETHERLANDS, PORTUGAL, FINLAND, SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM

It is to the countries listed above that the proposal to cut the fixed amount by 5% would apply.

All other countries claim the actual amount  and would not be affected. – e.g France, Belgium, Germany, Cyprus. etc in the EU…  The actual amount is the amount which the State of Residence has to find – not, as I have ascertained, the actual amount for the treatment as charged to the patient pensioner.  So in France the French State asks of Britain something considerably less than the full cost of the treatment to the patient.

The underlined phrase ‘planned treatment’ seems unnecessary. What is the significance of that phrase?

Then we need to look at EU Regulation 883/2004.  Annex IV to that regulation lists certain States where their Pensioner Nationals can return to their native land for health treatment [there is no reference to ‘planned treatment’ nor in the referenced article 27 here] – they are BELGIUM, GERMANY, GREECE, SPAIN, FRANCE, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG, AUSTRIA and SWEDEN.

Note that the United Kingdom is not listed.  The Green Paper would one supposes result in the UK being included in Annex IV. 

One of my correspondents has informed me that this is indeed what the Government is considering.

The result would be that qualifying Pensioners in the EU beyond the UK  could return quite legally to receive treatment under the NHS  and the confusion and uncertainties which has previously existed would be removed.

*Other qualifying  British State Pensioners resident elsewhere in the World would also benefit from a change in the regulations enabling treatment under the NHS on their occasional visits.  

The relationship of all this to the need for Representation in the Westminster Government.

If we had someone to represent us in Government then this rigmarole would not be necessary.  The DoH could consult with the representatives who would seek opinion from certain groups within each country.  A real democracy could come into being.

It is quite wrong in my view that the Government can produce such a ‘green paper’ and be apparently quite incapable of making appropriate contacts with the people most affected.

This is also so patently obvious with regard to the proposed Referendum.  This would affect the British Abroad in Europe very closely and yet are not in line to be consulted.

It is essential that we are Represented.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/55085

The address of the DoH is

International Healthcare Team

Department of Health

3rd Floor

Wellington House

133-155 Waterloo Road

London SE1 8UG

Email    migrantaccess@dh.gsi.gov.uk

(Remember that the consultation on the green paper closed on August 28^th 2013)

The green paper is viewable at

 http://www.lefourquet.net/DoH-07-13-healthcosts.pdf

Health Payments in Europe

To go to the INDEX and start click here.

French & European Health payments by the UK for British Pensioners

A/. It is appropriate that the retired citizens who live in France know exactly what expenses are paid  by the British Government for their health care in France.

I am eighty years old, retired, and have never earned any money in France and therefore have never subscribed to the French social security system. The UK is by EU law the ‘competent State’ for the support of our Social Security.  

Like so many others I find the costs of our health care ever rising. Some elderly couples are needing to find beyond 2,000 euros a year  for a top-up health insurance.

Under EU law France is required to ask the UK for the actual costs of our health treatment.  What is meant by ‘actual costs’?

I decided to find out the position.  This is possible via a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Health, London.   I have received very courteous mails from that department and was able to obtain details of all payments to France concerning my health payments since August 1998.  These are confidential and were sent to me by recorded delivery.

I have selected one item here which I have cross checked with details I received from the CPAM (French social security department).

Item  24^th January 2012

CPAM detail

Acte Biologie      

montant dépense (actual cost)      82.08€      taux 60% (amount paid by the French State)

montant payé  (amount paid to the  institution of treatment)          49.25€

participation forfaitaire à retenir   (‘tax’ retained for future collection from patient)   -4.00€

Soins infirmiers  

montant dépense (actual cost)       4.73€      taux  60% (amount paid by the French State)

montant payé  (amount paid to the  institution of treatment)             2.84

Reglé au Laboratoire   (Amount for final settlement to the Laboratory – A sum of  34.72€ was paid by my health  insurance  making up the total of  86.81€ =82.08+4.73€)      

 52.09€.  This is equal to the above 49.25€+2.84€

-------------------------

Breakdown on Claim from France sent to me from the Department of Health, London on items between 15/12/2011 to 22/06/2012.

Soins paramedicaux                           2.84€

Analyses biologiques                        49.25€   i.e = 52.09€

It is clear that the French State seeks repayment of the costs which the French State would find for a French Citizen.  .

B/.The added burden of French taxation on the cost of health.

The above  CPAM detail indicates a ‘participation forfaiture’ of 4€ .   This is a tax which the French Government levies on most health transactions.  It is 1€ for each visit to a G.P. and 0.5€ for collection of a drug at a pharmacy. 

The cost out of one’s pocket for the ‘Acte Biologie’ was therefore increased by 4€. 

The cost to me of this ‘Acte +soins’  was therefore 34.72€+4€= 38.72€. The 4€ was not paid by my insurance.

Over a year, the taxes on health costs accumulate. Together with the above taxes on each medical act as indicated above one must add the taxes on health insurance. During 2012 these taxes amounted in my case to towards 200€.  The more one requires drugs and medical care the higher the taxes. Some pensioners are paying out a great deal more than this in taxes on their health. The more ill you are the more tax you pay!  The French should be ashamed of this taxation on sick people.

C/. Insurance costs

During 2012 the cost of health insurance per month was for me 128.78€ (for a couple – being 64.39€ for one person).  It has since risen in 2013 to 135.78€/month -1629.36€/year).  198.15€/year of this latter sum is a tax paid to the French Government – i.e about 12%.

D/. The EU Laws on the position of health costs.

Regulations 883/2004 and its ‘implementing regulation 987/2009 are those that concern Social Security matters. My interpretations are indicated in orange.

Basic EU Regulation No 883/2004 defines ‘institution’ as ---

"institution" means, in respect of each Member State, the body or authority responsible for applying all or part of the legislation."

The EU laws below are interpreted as referring to the ‘actual costs’ to the institution of the State not the actual costs of the institution that provided the treatment.

EU Regs 883/2004 Article 24 covers the situation relating to Pensioners who have retired to live in another State…I quote verbatim.

“No right to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence

1. A person who receives a pension or pensions under the legislation of one or more Member States and who is not entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence shall nevertheless receive such benefits for himself and the members of his family, insofar as he would be entitled thereto under the legislation of the Member State or of at least one of the Member States competent in respect of his pensions, if he resided in that Member State. The benefits in kind shall be provided at the expense of the institution referred to in paragraph 2 by the institution of the place of residence, as though the person concerned were entitled to a pension and benefits in kind under the legislation of that Member State.”

[Observations/Interpretation :- It states that one should receive medical treatment in the same manner as one would expect under the legislation of the UK as if the patient resided in the UK.

                                    The costs are to be borne by the UK – the ‘competent State’ for your social security.

                                    The medical care is supplied as to a French person under French legislation as though he/she were a state pensioner of France.]

Continue....

“2. In the cases covered by paragraph 1, the cost of benefits in kind shall be borne by the institution as determined in accordance with the following rules:

(a) where the pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of a single Member State, the cost shall be borne by the competent institution of that Member State;”

[Interpretation – The UK is bound to pay the medical costs]

“Article 35

Reimbursements between institutions

1. The benefits in kind provided by the institution of a Member State on behalf of the institution of another Member State under this Chapter shall give rise to full reimbursement.”

-----------------------

From the Complementary ‘Implementing’  EU Regulation 987-2009 we read..

“Article 62

Principles

1.  For the purposes of applying Article 35 and Article 41 of the basic Regulation, the actual amount of the expenses for benefits in kind, as shown in the accounts of the institution that provided them, shall be reimbursed to that institution by the competent institution, ………….”

***************************

Commentary.

The difficulty lies in the interpretation of the clause: copied in above--

“The benefits in kind shall be provided at the expense of the institution referred to in paragraph 2 by the institution of the place of residence, as though the person concerned were entitled to a pension and benefits in kind under the legislation of that Member State.”

I observe that this clause has no mention of costs.  It relates to the provision of the medical treatment.  This has to be provided as though one is a French citizen.

One notes the contradiction with  the previous clause which states that

‘the pensioner’  shall nevertheless receive such benefits for himself …., insofar as he would be entitled thereto under the legislation of the (United Kingdom) [Member State] competent in respect of his pensions, (as) if he resided in (the United Kingdom) [that Member State].

And…

the cost shall be borne by the competent institution (DoH) of that Member State (the United Kingdom).

So we should get treatment as though we lived in the UK and the UK should cover the cost.

The law appears to me contradictory – It is written that one should receive the medical treatment as though one lived under the legislation of the UK and ALSO as a French citizen pensioner would receive it under the legislation in France.

Many French Citizens – those on 100% CMU cover – pay nothing for their health care.  In short –  the cost to the patient is variable according to the circumstances of the patient! Since the British pensioner has costs covered (in theory!) by the Department of Health, London, it would be reasonable to suppose that these patients should also fall into the 100% cover category. I explore that thought ina European context……

E/. Other European National Citizens in France.

EU laws must be applied equally to all nationals across Europe.  The provision of health care for a state pensioner varies widely from  Estonia to Portugal.   It would seem almost impossible to provide health care for every ‘mobile’ pensioner under two systems of legislation at the same time.  The current interpretation seems inadequate.

It is also a restriction and distortion on free movement of pensioners.   The pensioner nationals who move from most other European countries to the UK obtain free health care.  Clearly with the UK pensioners moving to other countries in Europe, it is very often and usually not so. 

F/. Reform? And a solution?

Would it not be sensible to transfer 100% of the costs from the State of Residence  to the administration of the  ‘competent States’ for the support of Social Security and then that administration should seek appropriate repayments according to the legislation of that State from the  pensioner patient ‘as though they lived in their home country’?  Is this indeed that which the EU regulations are seeking? i.e the costs should be  borne by the 'competent State?

The pensioner should then settle their bills (if appropriate so to do) in a manner according to the legislation of the ‘home’ State.

G/. The need for Representation on these matters at a political level.

There is no-one in the British Government or Administration with any responsibility to look after the interests of British Pensioners in mainland Europe.  

There should be someone who has the responsibility to negotiate with the EU or other national governments concerning the condition of British Pensioners abroad in Europe.

Health Costs - Europe June 2012

To go  to the index click here

Posted by Brian Cave (lefourquet@gmail.com)

I have had correspondence  with  the EU officials on this subject and the response is not helpful.

My letter of February 22^nd 2012 to Commissioner Andor can be read here

The reply from Jackie Morin [Head of Unit on Social Security Co-ordination]

of June 22^nd can be read here.

Below I  transcribe relevant extracts from the EU Regulations relating to Health provision and costing for British Pensioners in France under EU law.

These regulations consist of  two kinds - the Basic and the Implementing.   The Implementing Regulations are dated 2009.  The Basic - 2004.  Both have the full power of Law.

The Implementing Regulations explain in detail how the Basic are to be used. The wording of the implementing regulation is very precise

I have coloured in portions – to make them easier to understand.

Greyed areas-  are of no interest, but given because they are referenced elsewhere.

Purple entries are added by myself by way of explanation.

N.B. The Basic regulations have been in operation (in a similar form but began under other Regulation headings -1408/1971 and 574/1972)  for many years.  The more recent Implementing regulation came into force on May 1st 2010.  From 1973 to the present day, payment was made via a formula laid down in Article 95 of the the Reg 574/1972 and not on 'actual amounts'. The current Implementing Regulations are more precise and definitive than the previous.

The UK joined the EU in 1973.

It seems to me obvious that  the currant regulations are not being implemented to the letter.

I leave it to the reader to comment – I should reply to Jackie Morin but  await  any views before so doing.   Views of people with a legal background would be helpful.   Brian Cave.

-------------------------------

REGULATION (EC) No 883/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 29 April 2004

on the coordination of social security systems

Article 24

No right to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence

British Pensioners who have NEVER  paid  into the French Social Care system have no right to benefits under French Legislation.

1. A person who receives a pension or pensions under the legislation of one or more Member States and who is not entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence shall nevertheless receive such benefits for himself and the members of his family, insofar as he would be entitled thereto under the legislation of the Member State or of at least one of the Member States competent in respect of his pensions, if he resided in that Member State  (i.e the UK). The benefits in kind shall be provided at the expense of the institution referred to in paragraph 2 by the institution of the place of residence, as though the person concerned were entitled to a pension and benefits in kind under the legislation of that Member State.

2. In the cases covered by paragraph 1, the cost of benefits in kind shall be borne by the institution as determined in accordance with the following rules:

(a) where the pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of a single Member State, the cost shall be borne by the competent institution of that Member State (i.e. the Dept. of  Health/NHS)

(b) where the pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of two or more Member States, the cost thereof shall be borne by the competent institution of the Member State to whose legislation the person has been subject for the longest period of time; should the application of this rule result in several institutions being responsible for the cost of benefits, the cost shall be borne by the institution applying the legislation to which the pensioner was last subject.

Article 35

Reimbursements between institutions

1. The benefits in kind provided by the institution of a Member State on behalf of the institution of another Member State under this Chapter shall give rise to full reimbursement.

 2. The reimbursements referred to in paragraph 1 shall be determined and effected in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Implementing Regulation, either on production of proof of actual expenditure, or on the basis of fixed amounts for Member States the legal or administrative structures of which are such that the use of reimbursement on the basis of actual expenditure is not appropriate.

3. Two or more Member States, and their competent authorities, may provide for other methods of reimbursement or waive all reimbursement between the institutions coming under their jurisdiction.

CHAPTER 2

Benefits in respect of accidents at work and occupational diseases

-----------------------------

Article 41

Reimbursements between institutions

1. Article 35 shall also apply to benefits falling within this Chapter, and reimbursement shall be made on the basis of actual costs.

REGULATION (EC) No 987/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 16 September 2009

laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004

on the coordination of social security systems

TITLE IV           FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

Chapter I

Reimbursement of the cost of benefits in application of Article 35 and Article 41 of the basic Regulation

SECTION 1

REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE

Article 62

Principles

1. For the purposes of applying Article 35 and Article 41 of the basic Regulation, the actual amount of the expenses for benefits in kind, as shown in the accounts of the institution that provided them, shall be reimbursed to that institution by the competent institution (i.e the DoH/NHS), except where Article 63 of the implementing Regulation is applicable.

SECTION_ 2

REIMBURSEMENT ON THE BASIS OF FIXED AMOUNTS

Article 63

Identification of the Member States concerned

1. The Member States referred to in Article 35(2) of the basic Regulation, whose legal or  administrative structures are such that the use of reimbursement on the basis of actual  expenditure is not appropriate, are listed in Annex 3 to the implementing  Regulation.

Annex 3

France is not listed in Annex 3  and therefore will ask for repayment (for any British pensioners in France)  from the UK on the basis of ‘actual costs’.

The UK is listed and will ask France for repayment (for any French pensioners in the UK) on the basis of a fixed amount.

This annex 3 lists the following nations which will seek payment of health costs for foreign  EU pensioners on their territory by means of fixed sums.  Thus health payment provided in Britain for a French pensioner will be made via a 'fixed sum'.  All other countries (including France) will demand the 'actual amount' as defined above -so it seems!

IRELAND, SPAIN, ITALY, MALTA, THE NETHERLANDS, PORTUGAL, FINLAND, SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM

I was informed some time ago by the Department of Health that France will henceforth seek repayment of actual costs.

HEALTH MATTERS - Monthly Comment April 2010

A further item has been posted on this subject - Refer to the INDEX for developments.
 
BACKGROUND

Few expatriate OAPs in Europe realise that they enjoy health-care support because of EU agreements and THAT THE FINANCE COMES FROM THE UK – in effect from the NHS.

The EU Regulations (essentially 1408/1971 and 883/2004) state that the costs of health care for the Old Age Pensioner is the responsibility of the State to whom the OAP has paid his/her social security contributions. That State will pay your Old Age Pension and support your old age health care! This State is defined as the ‘competent State’ - For almost all expatriate elderly Britons this competent State is The United Kingdom.

Clearly it must be understood that if you have not paid into the Social Security regime of France (or other country) because you had not lived there in an employed category, there is no logical reason why you should be supported under the health-care system of France (or other country)! Only an EU agreement gives you this support. And someone must pay for it! Let us look more closely….

A quote from Article 24 of EU Regulation 883/2004….

“1. A person who receives a pension or pensions under the legislation of one or more Member States and who is not entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence shall nevertheless receive such benefits for himself and the members of his family, insofar as he would be entitled thereto under the legislation of the Member State or of at least one of the Member States competent in respect of his pensions, if he resided in that Member State. The benefits in kind shall be provided at the expense of the institution referred to in paragraph 2 by the institution of the place of residence, as though the person concerned were entitled to a pension and benefits in kind under the legislation of that Member State.”

The institution referred to in the following paragraph 2 is indicated as the “competent institution of the Member State” in effect - the NHS. In other words: - you should be treated by the health system of France (your place of residence) and charged to the institution of your competent State (the UK).

Read the highlighted parts again --- It says that you will receive benefits insofar as you would be entitled under the legislation of the competent State (the UK) as if you resided in that Member State (the UK).

That says that if you get 100% cover in the UK you should also get it in France! Or anywhere else in the EEA.

Under the above Article it would seem that we have two situations – firstly The State of Residence is obliged to treat you as though you come under the social care legislation of that State, but the competent State should also ensure that you have the benefits as though you were resident in the competent State. The only way to resolve this is in France to be treated as a French citizen would be (which one is), but that the full cost is picked up by the UK. I have an uncomfortable feeling that the UK is being charged by France at somewhere about the full cost and that the British OAP resident in France is being asked to find up to 30% of the cost as well - via a ‘mutuelle’ or his pocket! This 30% (approx) should not be necessary.

To the current date every EEA country has transferred grants between themselves of a sum of money to cover the health costs of their expatriate OAPs. (Regulation 574/1972 Article 95 – now 38 years old and before the time of electronic data  transmission! And before the UK joined the EU in 1973!) The calculation of these grants are somewhat convoluted.

Two supplementary articles are in consequence appended to this introduction.

Click on a title to view.

1. The matter of the European Health Insurance Card [EHIC]

A matter of confusion?

2. The costing of the health support of the expatriate OAP in Europe.
This item is updated with additional statistics from the Dept of Health London April 14th. 2010
Is the UK and the British Citizen being ripped off by France? The charge to the UK for pensioners in France is 192% higher than for pensioners in Italy and healthcare in Italy is totally free. This link also links in turn to all the relevant legal extracts. It also indicates the way forward.  

You may well find these items interesting reading.

The whole sorry affair indicates that we need a Minister for the European Expatriate in Westminster. After the general election it will be necessary to write to the Minister of Health.  If necessary a draft letter will be published next month.  In the meanwhile... You may wish to report this matter to your MP or send a petition to the EU Commission.  For  ideas contact me DEBOUT!  click
In the meanwhile if you live in France you  must follow the French law and pay up!