Private Health Insurance

Plus most EU countries require a monthly health insurance to be paid and proof that the EEA citizen worked in their country the previous week, earning at least a certain amount, or they get billed, but the EU rules on free movement doesn't suit the way the NHS is run.

This is quite contradictory. This poster seems to be saying that other EU countries work well with freedom of movement rules and yet freedom of movement rules are the problem?

A bit like saying "The EU has determined fried foods are unhealthy, but fish and chips are English so they are wrong"

If you are an EU citizen living here, you are required to have Comprehensive Sickness Insurance for you and all member of your family if you are either a student or self-sufficient. (Not employed.)

It also gives you the option of avoiding the NHS, which does not necessarily offer all treatments and medications, even if you need them. And, from what I understand, getting in to see specialists much more quickly than on the NHS. (We have never needed to use our private medical insurance.)

In other EEA countries, those who are Self Sufficient or a Student on EU rules, are not allowed to use that healthcare system at all and they must use their own private insurance to pay, they don't get a choice. That is written in the 2004 Directive on the Free Movement of Persons. That couldn't work with the UK's NHS because the UK's law was that anybody lawfully living in the UK could use the NHS bill free, but it did work for all the other EEA countries who have insurance based national health services.

That's the same for all the Family Members these bring with them too, they must pay using their private health insurance and that includes for any children or elderly relatives. Any non-EEA citizen Family Members of these have to pay privately too for healthcare, even if they are working in that country and paying full taxes because their EEA sponsor is not economically active.

Because the NHS is based on tax revenues. A few years ago it was announced that there 10 million more people are in the UK but the government takes less in in Income Tax than they did before this rise in the population by 10 million.

 Other countries protect their national health system by doing things like: only giving visas to those who pass a medical for every visa and not allowing them full access to their health system for years; having to use private insurance for certain things that might happen as people get older and these pay more if they haven't held that insurance for years; pay a monthly fee to use their health service and those that don't work pay more. etc The UK doesn't do any of that.

Plus most EU countries require a monthly health insurance to be paid and proof that the EEA citizen worked in their country the previous week, earning at least a certain amount, or they get billed, but the EU rules on free movement doesn't suit the way the NHS is run.

And here's just an example.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/26/family-denied-visa-daughter-downs-syndrome-9022812/

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

And here's just an example.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/26/family-denied-visa-daughter-downs-syndrome-9022812/

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

A medical is needed for every visa in other countries that have a public healthcare system, to protect their healthcare system for their own citizens.
e.g. NOTE also that ALL children under age 18, whether they are applying or included in the applicant or not, MUST do a medical and pass a medical – this INCLUDES children from a previous marriage not included in your application.
https://australia-visa-solutions.com/2013/08/23/health-and-medical-requirements-for-australian-visas/


To still use NZ as an example, when they decided to not let overweight immigrants stay anymore, it affected those who already had visas too.

Refused a permanent visa because she was unable to pass the requriement to not be a strain on the NZ health service:  it was estimated that just over 4 years, she would cost the NZ health service NZ$25,000  (just under 13k in sterling)
http://www.visabureau.com/newzealand/news/18-02-2009/obese-american-woman-denied-nz-visa.aspx

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/12057301/Obese-South-African-chef-loses-immigration-fight-to-remain-in-New-Zealand.html

There are some about overweight Brits too being refused, but I can't find them now.

But even in other countries that do not cover most healthcare costs under their public system: as they are not paying a monthly fee to use that system:  their citizens need private insurance or they go without that treatment/drug. Those who don't have a public healthcare system in their own country and who believed the NHS would pay for everything for them, have found when they arrived that it was just a rumour that was not true. The NHS has never covered everything and waiting lists can be long if you don't use your private insurance or pay yourself. We have always paid privately for our children and my parents paid for us.

In recent years we have seen the UK starting to move to stop NHS abuse.  They have now said that even having British citizenship, no longer means the UK taxpayers will pay for your healthcare. Some of these suddenly finding they lost the UK paying for them and had to fund all their own health costs, as they had not contributed to the UK (paid taxes to the UK) for at least 10 years before their UK retirement age for the year they were born..

In recent years we have seen the UK starting to move to stop NHS abuse.  They have now said that even having British citizenship, no longer means the UK taxpayers will pay for your healthcare. Some of these suddenly finding they lost the UK paying for them and had to fund all their own health costs, as they had not contributed to the UK (paid taxes to the UK) for at least 10 years before their UK retirement age for the year they were born..

Is this hearsay or official new rules?

Is this hearsay or official new rules?

I have not heard of the 10 year requirement. Last year I had 2 outpatient surgeries and each time I had to bring along with me 2 documents selected from 2 lists to show a) proof of the right to live in the UK, and b) proof that I am currently living in the UK. For me that meant I took my British Passport plus a utility bill in my name.

Is this hearsay or official new rules?

Fact,  and it was 10 tax years (6 April to 5 April) the minimum years required to get a part UK state pension, although some wanted it based on the HMRC tax records.

It was one of the new rules when the government's online site showed that the people wanted the NHS rules to change. Some angry because their elderly relatives who hads paid 40 plus years of taxes to the UK (including those who arrived as immigrants), were on waiting lists with those who had not (including those with British citizenship), with the suggestion on there that there should be an A and B list. Some consultants were also saying the government should end this now.

The Immgiration Act 2014 then ended that, anybody who lawfully lives in the UK can use the NHS bill free. This 10 years was one of the first things they brought in when that Bill was passed and was for the EU's S1 agreement so that these could no longer have/renew their S1. Then they ended the piggybacking a UK state pension from a partner's contributions, so that a state pension is now based on the persons own contributions to the UK. 

The consultation ran to see what to charge for the Immigration Helalth Surcahrge every year, showed that people had put between £0 and £15,000 a year.

NHS Engand has already run a consultation to see what other charges people want to make.

In other EEA countries, those who are Self Sufficient or a Student on EU rules, are not allowed to use that healthcare system at all and they must use their own private insurance to pay, they don't get a choice. That is written in the 2004 Directive on the Free Movement of Persons. That couldn't work with the UK's NHS because the UK's law was that anybody lawfully living in the UK could use the NHS bill free, but it did work for all the other EEA countries who have insurance based national health services.

That's the same for all the Family Members these bring with them too, they must pay using their private health insurance and that includes for any children or elderly relatives. Any non-EEA citizen Family Members of these have to pay privately too for healthcare, even if they are working in that country and paying full taxes because their EEA sponsor is not economically active.

For what it's worth:

In France, once a "self-sufficient" has been there three months, they can qualify for PUMA. Private Insurance in France is typically a "top up" cover, from what I can see, although you can still get CSI. The cost to join PUMA is about 8% of your taxable income above around 10,000 euros a year. (To remain in compliance with the EU regs you'd still have to have the CSI, but you don't have to use it, apparently.)  For financial dependents, the system of ‘ayant droits‘ was abolished with PUMA and instead all eligible persons are granted their own right to healthcare,.

If you have an European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) card issued by an EU-member state and you are in France on a holiday or other temporary visit ­– that is, you are not a resident nor working in France - you can use the health system.

For EU - under PUMA French healthcare system, dependent family members of foreigners with a S1 exemption certificate do not lose their S1 rights, as the new law excludes those connected to a foreign pension who also get health insurance cover through their home country. This means that S1 households do not have to pay contributions to the French health system nor pay French social security on their pension. Thus those who hold an S1 certificate of exemption will only be affiliated with PUMA for the purpose of administration.

If one is self-employed (even as a micro-entrepreneur https://www.french-property.com/guides/france/business/micro-entrepreneur ), the fee is based on your income. If you don't make a profit at all, or not above the cutoff, the state pays your PUMA fees.

Lifted from https://www.expatica.com/fr/healthcare/healthcare-basics/guide-to-health-insurance-in-france-108848/  :

On 1 January 2016 the Protection Maladie Universelle (PUMA) replaced the old French health insurance scheme Couverture Maladie Universelle (CMU), and now grants all residents in France – including foreigners – easier access to health services in France.  Under PUMA, legal permanent residents in France are entitled to state health insurance in France if they have lived in the country for three consecutive months on a ‘stable and regular basis’. This healthcare reform has simplified the requirements for workers and residents in France to qualify, as unlimited healthcare access will now be an automatic and continuous right of all residents regardless of age, prior medical history and record of paying French social security contributions (cotisations sociales).

Previously, France health insurance for foreigners was only offered if a number of living or employment conditions were met.... 

PUMA also equalises the rights of European Union (EU) and non-EU citizens to apply for their carte vitale (health insurance card) and receive French health insurance after three months of residency in France. Non-EU citizens already enjoyed this right prior to 2016, while EU citizens had to wait five years before they could apply for health insurance in France – a law that was largely criticised for undermining the latter’s free movement within the European Union.


For students (Similar info on several websites, so I'm not citing):

All international students who will be in France are required to have health insurance, either public or private. Many international students are eligible to take part in their universal health care coverage, though this is dependent upon factors such as age, country of origin, and length of their degree program.
To be eligible for the national health insurance program offered in France, students must be:

    Under the age of 28 by October 1st of the current University year
    Enrolled on a degree program for a period of 4 months or longer
    Have a home country that is outside of the European Union or Switzerland

If any of these provisions are not met, an international student would be required to obtain private health insurance for themselves. Students from the European Economic area are exempt from participating provided they can show their valid European health insurance card or if they can show proof of carrying private health insurance in France. If a foreign student is interested in the state health care, they can pay 207 EUR to have the same coverage as its citizens.

For what it's worth:

In France, once a "self-sufficient" has been there three months, they can qualify for PUMA. Private Insurance in France is typically a "top up" cover, from what I can see, although you can still get CSI. The cost to join PUMA is about 8% of your taxable income above around 10,000 euros a year.

The change for self sufficients and students (and all their family members) to have Comprehensicve Sickness Insurance, was added to the 2004 Directive at the request of the EEA countries. This, like many other EU rules, then allows that EEA country to choose what they will give and what they won't.

That also allows for future governments of that EEA country to change that again and  if they wish, to apply any changes retrospectively if it is in the country's favour to do so. e.g. One country might give citzenship quicker than others; one may give use of their health system; one may allow unmarried non-EEA citizen partners; one may give full benefits when they arrive etc,  but then any future governent can end that and apply that change retrospectively.

The UK only started to bring in the requirement for a Comprehensive Sickness Policy,  for some of these,  in 2011 and now it is everyone. You can see those changes on the Advisories board on here. But as the UK law still said that all those lawfully in the UK could have bill free use or the NHS, the UK still had to provide that. With the new law now ending this for the NHS, it will be up to future governments to decdide if they will still continue that, and that is whether the UK stays in the EU or not.

As the EU rules state that EEA workers can only have what a citizen of that country can have, any changes to that also affect these EEA citizens/all their non-EEA family members/ those using European Court of Justice Rulings to be in that EEA country. We have already seen EEA goverments in the popular countries for Free Movement, do this. e.g. the Netherlands bringing in a flat rate of Housing Benefits for the whole of the country; various UK governments changing the rules for what the UK will pay for with healthcare and new Welfare Reform laws.

Or these EEA governments put through new laws to strike out what the ECJ has ruled they must give to those using Free Movement when EEA citizens have complained to the ECJ, or that EEA country will ignore what the ECJ/EU has said..