[BBC News] Health minister in £2m funds plea

[nessa]

As John states, if you go and live somehwere with a developed social health care system then you are entitled to take advantage of that (i.e use it normally) once you've started paying into that system. That's what the "immigrants" who come here to work do.

 

And you know what really gets me about these two posters commenting on the IOM Health Service? Neihter of them actually live here!

 

Sorry I have not been following any other comments Static from poster "From Abroad" however I am not sure if members in here can offer up their POVs concerning a variety of migration experiences fyi without going abroad etc

 

I agree I am not currently living on the Isle of Man either - but not sure how I could do this if I wished or it was felt necessary!!Basically I feel that having such a choice is something that requires great expense and difficulty to achieve AND many of those choices are or have been obstructed now ie tis easy to leave but repatriation can be much harder etc

 

I certainly also know that British "emigrants" who may into some countries with apparently developed social health care systems can believe this promotion during employment recruitment or investment drives... but then yeah unfortunately discover that theory is not the reality! Sadly this discovery can come during crisis situations - but by then it may be too late imho!!

 

For example, fairly recently it seemed that the British habitual residence testing was still a fairly unclear internal DWP policy being administered by clerks and I mean vagueness or risk in post 9/11 times etc. But as a result of EU cases and developments thankfully I understand that this aspect may be improving as a result of efforts by CPAG and other NGOs who may help British folks who have returned back home ie anybody who discover themselves in a no mans land of exile perhaps etc

 

I do know that if I was a criminal that I would likely be deported back to you and have many of my immediate living needs met but as a parent this is an outrageous solution that has been suggested at times imho. I have also met a few WW2 veterans and their families who will all have their own stories to tell about this Static - so yeah even in here I already do know that it can be still a very inflammatory dialogue considering the world hostilities today sadly

 

I am not sure that discussing various other unpleasant discoveries which can occur when overseas and dependent upon the host countries actions and systems would be ontopic here but here is a link which may interest you http://www.nzpensionabuse.org/

 

I am guessing that France will have some sort of well used reciprocal tax arrangements with the UK or IOM even if the health differences are being disputed etc However the above website details the experiences of one group of immigrants a bit further away from home who find not just that any British Pension entitlements can be frozen - but also that direct deductions can occur! Thus for some folks paying any stamps prior to immigrating - and afterwards to the second IRD body - can mean sweet FA to the family or person when they be needed etc I refer to compulsory matters & disclosures here as well Static so its a bit hard to swallow when they can simply disappear it seems depending upon the host country decisions etc That link will explain more fyi, and afaik despite the winter weather here - there may have been a small group of pensioners sitting quietly outside some benefit offices trying to commemorate the second annual World Elder Abuse Awareness Day downunder etc

 

As I am not of retirement age myself, I cannot give personal anecdotes on that particular issue - however I do know the reason some folks cannot return back home is because it all comes down to many money questions basically ie birthrights irrelevant imho Therefore I believe now that if any British immigrant is not independently wealthy for their entire lifespan or circumstances either coming over here or vice versa- they best NOT expect any plain sailing or cruising etc

 

To return more ontopic though - health care may also depend upon the host country statutes & whims sadly Static ie medical attention and support following workplace injuries & accidents as well as crime victims may mean much longer waiting periods are involved too! This is once an immigrant has entered the normal system here as they are now a permanent resident or dual citizen with a history of tax or levy payments etc. If they are a health tourist they are slowly but surely being identified now with the advances in technology and data matching I think so those occassional stories surface now and again here etc

 

However I may be somewhat biased Static as over here there is that wee fact that any claims for compensation due to any injury let alone medical misadventure or malpractice is again barred here that yeah that reality is not very well known elsewhere! So any tourist here as well as any British immigrant can still can find any and all support is now fully dependent upon the host Government Agency clerical decisionmaking etc However if this unfortunate professional or working person or their family have paid stamps in both countries and cannot repatriate - and also discovered they cannot sue for loss of health capacity or income/career or so on - well then they should obtain some form of subsistence Sickness Benefit if they meet residency requirements when in this situation. Course if they be really really lucky then perhaps even an Incapacity Benefit same as everyone else in the host country - and which is exactly the same as those who have never paid taxes in the host country etc

[Static]

You've totally lost me Nessa. My post was part response to "from abroads" one and only post on manxforums which was the same troling rant they'd made in the local papers recently, very "daily mail", confusing separate health care issues (which you wouldn't have seen as you no longer live here ) and also me taking the p*** out of Ourtess which maybe i shouldn't have done

 

your post has me a bit confused. I get the impression that you have moved to New Zealand where there are issues with forieign pensions being paid and that you have found it hard to move home and get benefits because of the British Habitual residence test. which if i'm correct was a law/ruling brought in some years back to stop so-called "benefti tourists" from the EU (another daily mail rant!). Not I know from personal family-in-law circumstances that has caused problems for expatriates returning home but why should an expatriate, afters years of living abroad and not paying into the UK social security system get any benefits for the first few months?

 

But then i could have totally mis-understood your post as it was a bit difficult to read, sorry.

[nessa]

You've totally lost me Nessa. My post was part response to "from abroads" one and only post on manxforums which was the same troling rant they'd made in the local papers recently, very "daily mail", confusing separate health care issues (which you wouldn't have seen as you no longer live here ) and also me taking the p*** out of Ourtess which maybe i shouldn't have done

 

your post has me a bit confused. I get the impression that you have moved to New Zealand where there are issues with forieign pensions being paid and that you have found it hard to move home and get benefits because of the British Habitual residence test. which if i'm correct was a law/ruling brought in some years back to stop so-called "benefti tourists" from the EU (another daily mail rant!). Not I know from personal family-in-law circumstances that has caused problems for expatriates returning home but why should an expatriate, afters years of living abroad and not paying into the UK social security system get any benefits for the first few months?

 

But then i could have totally mis-understood your post as it was a bit difficult to read, sorry.

 

LOL Static - I probably should be the one saying sorry - writing cryptic posts was once a little habit of mine; plus now and again a few other ramblings if something catches my eye but yep I shall try to do better if I can

 

I admit I have not followed any recent DailyMail or changes in the EU and UK or IOM agreements in the past 2/3 years but I have noted a couple of developments elsewhere that appear to be both good and not so good news perhaps? However tbh - I would have to check back in on some of my links before I can recall mores fyi etc

 

I guess the benefit tourism and discussion is another whole topic in itself Static but my interest in relating to this issue is when it affects British folks overseas who have become victims of crime &/or injury perhaps? Some of those very same EU restrictions you or others mention appearing might still have a few side effects? I refer here to a few British expats or workers & their families who might have to [or wish to] repatriate and it is them who may be finding this need or choice obstructed etc This may also not just by a few months HRT waiting situation either imho Static, but not that long ago they may have also found a few extra wrinkles could unexpectedly appear too sadly

 

Did the rellies you mention live in a country which had different agreement limitations &/or gained various benefits overseas which would have been unavailable if they had remained in the UK or IOM and vice versa perhaps? Of course it may also only be a temporary strife for a minority group [like me mebbe lolz] who may be very getting confused or disadvantaged in the midst of these wider international developments as lots of changes happening obviously etc My concern or POV here then is mainly if someone is unprepared due to nontransparency or bureaucracy hurdles with these various agreements; and that a touch of naivety or misplaced trust is what could lead a returning person/family to difficult circumstsances perhaps?

 

I guess what prompted my posting is a concern that for some folks or their immediate families who may HAVE paid directly into the UK Social Security System and then may also go overseas &/or return after a time abroad but you have already noted this aspect so I wont waffle anymores on that etc I guess what the link in my previous post above is or was trying to show - is also the discovery that if the Brit then decides to stay abroad downunder instead of repatriating - then they may find there is or was no benefit to making any UK National Contributions as such; and perhaps also a loss incurred with any occupational superannuation savings from the UK too!! But tbh Static, I am not too sure though of all the fine detail and small print under these everchanging reciprocity agreements so will have to check with some older folks managing these particular retirement policies etc Of course if someone pays taxes into a new host country that also claims reciprocity with the UK home country and then repatriates - and it is not a more clear and separated foreign or workplace pension situation- then it can be even more complex and confusing imho

 

However as the storylink below & this recent example mentions - there are still a number of possible uncertainties or changes involved in any immigration or repatriation decisions for the modern globetrotting citizen ie something that I personally would want to look into mores myself imho!! Plus I feel that if someone is perhaps a dual citizen - then sadly these days with all the different reciprocal tax and benefit agreements around - well it can be a bit murky to wade through & yeah there may be a few surprises in there too imho!! Hence I feel there is a vital need for informed decisionmaking for every worker overseas cos it sure aint like it used to be and nowadays talking with either my parents generation or my childs generation let alone mine brings different POVs etc

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story....8194&pnum=0

 

I am not sure if the Englishman in this story who says "he's not asking the NZ taxpayer to support him. He gets two pensions from Britain and has private health insurance" has fully verified this Income or independent support yet though if he is just an investor here Static? I will see if I can find out anything more recent than last month etc The commemorations of the second annual World Elder Abuse Awareness Day was only 48hours ago here too obviously - but I have not seen anything reported in mainstream media as yet this weekend concerning these issues and protests etc The way I read that pensionlink I put up which is supporting the international day would be that this englishman could lose his British income if he entered the NZ Social Security system & indeed even if he marries a kiwi woman - then she too could also be penalised downunder for that relationship as well But my eyes are crossing now Static so I may try this brainstorming laters when I am more switched on again mebbe lolz

[John Wright]

james Joyce lives

[ourtess]

and also me taking the p*** out of Ourtess which maybe i shouldn't have done

 

It's a forum, that's what you do.

But I'd give the old 'yah, boo, you don't live here' a rest.

[John Wright]

Lets try and deal with Nessa's points quickly

 

You go abroad and then after a while, even many years return to UK (or IOM), what is your entitlement to benefits. After the Swaddling case you are immediately entitled to all benefits except contributory benefits for which you have insufficient contributions and DLA. That means income support. For DLA if you are terminally ill and expect to live less than 26 weeks you also qualify. If not you qualify after being back 26 weeks.

 

That is the only point likely to affect most of us.

 

For others with rights to reside, ie people from the EU, you have to be in UK at least 2 years before you can claim and maybe more. maybe 5 years. That is to stop benefit tourists. Remember IOM requires people from UK to have lived here for 5 years before they can claim non contributory benefits such as income support

 

Her other points are about specific NZ benefits/Pensions

 

NZ pensions are quite generous and do not really depend upon full payment into a fund for a number of years. You get the full pension whatever you have paid in. A really good system. However if you move from UK to NZ at age 40, with 20 years contributions and then live in NZ until pension age you get an NZ pension but it is 100% means tested by reducing it by the amount of your UK pension, which is frozen at its initial level and never increased. That means you do get increases in the NZ pension in full annually. In other words you don't get the benefit of two pensions. It is their rules. To afford a generous non contributory state pension there have to be disadvantages. that is one

 

Her other point is the unique accident compensation system which takes the fault out of compensation. Everyone is insured. The pay outs are low for damages but should also pay for alterations to your home etc.

 

It is the very opposite of US damages, staggeringly high and paid for by higher consumer prices and by frightening insurance premiums for motor, medicine, lawyers etc. We all pay somehow.

 

The NZ no fault scheme takes all the money out of court fees and lawyers. So you are from IOM, you are seriously injured in NZ. You qualify for the no fault scheme even if only a visitor, but you do not get as much as if you could sue. It does not pay for repatriation and does not provide income replacement damages. So you end up in IOM on benefit.

 

Well damages levels in different countries differ widely. The NZ system is designed for residents primarily and is an extension of their welfare state.

 

If you travel take out adequate medical and accident insurance such as lumps sums (for loss of an arm, leg, sight etc) to cover you if unable to work again and to cover getting you home. It doesn't matter where you are going to.

[Static]

and also me taking the p*** out of Ourtess which maybe i shouldn't have done

 

It's a forum, that's what you do.

But I'd give the old 'yah, boo, you don't live here' a rest.

 

Why? You don't live here!

[ourtess]

and also me taking the p*** out of Ourtess which maybe i shouldn't have done

 

It's a forum, that's what you do.

But I'd give the old 'yah, boo, you don't live here' a rest.

 

Why? You don't live here!

 

Neither does the Queen, and she owns the place.

[nessa]

Lets try and deal with Nessa's points quickly

 

Thank you John for putting up with me and providing a much more succinct and ideal or expected benefit arrangements etc However I guess where I see major differences for my POV is not in respect to the law as such - but instead its implementation and any CaseManager discretions to interpret their policies &/or quality of oversight or accountability of these public servants & clerks perhaps? Apologies to you and others for the length of this posting

 

You go abroad and then after a while, even many years return to UK (or IOM), what is your entitlement to benefits. After the Swaddling case you are immediately entitled to all benefits except contributory benefits for which you have insufficient contributions and DLA. That means income support. For DLA if you are terminally ill and expect to live less than 26 weeks you also qualify. If not you qualify after being back 26 weeks.

 

That is the only point likely to affect most of us

 

Fo example, I still worry that the Swaddling case may not be much help to a number of British folks returning etc At one stage - it appeared geting even considered for any entitlements was more focussed on a DM deciding if that vague HRT was passed or not etc Being able to cope without wages or income support [nor prior foreign wages or benefit entitlements either] as well became necessarye etc. Then its a case of waiting for the backpayments of IS to appear was where some huge adverse stuff was happening sadly imho ie unless repatriots secured jobs and homes before return etc. I did once have a variety of cases and discussions here relating to this particular difficulty John but I am certainly not up to speed with the current situations etc I am hopeful this has improved but a quick google & scanread reminded me there may still be a few wrinkles to iron out tho etc eg

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showthread.php?t=312175

 

Perhaps the problem a couple of years ago was actually folks obtaining any *payment* of their entitlements to Income Support but I guess there are more helpful judgements now on this issue John? Contributory benefits are different again I know - but yep I was more shocked at those loopholes where absolute destitution or involuntary homelessness was happening to folks repatriating etc IMHO this is the reason that there was some dialogue elsewhere about deportation or refugee policies being explored so British folks returning home could access a cell or hostel in desperate times after coming through Heathrow etc

.

For others with rights to reside, ie people from the EU, you have to be in UK at least 2 years before you can claim and maybe more. maybe 5 years. That is to stop benefit tourists. Remember IOM requires people from UK to have lived here for 5 years before they can claim non contributory benefits such as income support

 

I am not up to play with the EU developments as a layperson, and know there are IOM differences John - but I do remember the calls by a few UK Advocate groups seeking assistance and folks for some cases when ie there were individuals suffering severe hardship etc There is also the "Nessa Case" [and no connection to me lolz] which vaguely if I remember right deals with obtaining IS from day 1 too etc Add to these seeming safety nets - then any reciprocal agreements where a period of time is apparently permitted for the bureaucratic wheels and red tape to settle during the countryshift [designed to prevent dual income from both countries obviously] and one can find this 13 week period quickly expires but the situation has not improved ie the expat is now looking at DWP reviews and finding help - as well as manage other strife etc

 

Her other points are about specific NZ benefits/Pensions

 

NZ pensions are quite generous and do not really depend upon full payment into a fund for a number of years. You get the full pension whatever you have paid in. A really good system. However if you move from UK to NZ at age 40, with 20 years contributions and then live in NZ until pension age you get an NZ pension but it is 100% means tested by reducing it by the amount of your UK pension, which is frozen at its initial level and never increased. That means you do get increases in the NZ pension in full annually. In other words you don't get the benefit of two pensions. It is their rules. To afford a generous non contributory state pension there have to be disadvantages. that is one

 

I am not sure how to respond to this John at the moment but I will try my best lolz Certainly many pensioners I know IRL would definitely disagree with you on this point sadly Mind you I am possibly biased and disheartened when those dialogues occur due to their distress and hardship or destitution struggles etc I also think there may be some confusion between both countries as in NZ citizens may be entitled to a retirement SS benefit BUT that income is a benefit not a pension and in NZ this nominal retirement benefit seems to be irrelevant to CONTRIBUTION history within NZ or elsewhere etc It is means tested as you noted as there were huge problems where hospitalisation or care costs have seen many pensioners lose their homes afaik etc

 

Also again afaik, there is still only a very short record of PAYE or stamps [7 years I think] held by the NZ Inland Revenue Department here too - but I think folks are slowly waking up to this etc IMHO this can be vital information for repatriation times and indeed it seems to be expected data sought by kiwis from the UK. I doubt though that the DWP would be able to verify my professional career with high PAYE therein John - mainly as this is no longer available to me if I should return to the UK etc This kind of difference may be found here when a British national is compelled to obtain their entitlement to a UK pension for compulsory deduction in NZ but then cannot access contrinutory UK Benefits as such data is now unavailable etc The point I am trying to make is that I totally agree there should be not be dual benefit payments coming from either Social Security system - however I think we are talking about oranges & apples maybe?

 

This is a small media release I found here which relates to kiwis working overseas your way fyi but some of this stuff is way beyond me now John. I have also attached copy of their leaflets in case you may be interested plys yep there has still been nothing in the mainstream media here either afaik etc

 

Media release

 

Superannuitants protest loss of Super

 

On Friday 15 June, superannuitants receiving KiwiSaver-like pensions from overseas, angry at their reduced NZ Super payout, will commemorate the second annual World Elder Abuse Awareness Day by protesting outside WINZ service centres across the country.

 

New Zealanders who worked overseas find it ironic that Work and Income, the agency responsible for administering a discriminatory direct deduction policy, trains its staff to recognise signs that its clients may be victims of extortion or fraud.

 

Every year, as they turn 65, thousands of new superannuitants encounter for the first time what WINZ rightly calls financial abuse, finding themselves victims not of family members, however, but of the state.

 

The overseas pensions they receive are deducted from their NZ Super according to WINZ's interpretation of section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964. The CEO of WINZ maintains that foreign government-administered pensions are equivalent to New Zealand's old-age benefit.

 

Most such pensions, however, are not benefits at all, but the overseas equivalents of KiwiSaver, paid out only to those who have paid for them. Most - like KiwiSaver - provide for employer and employee contributions but - unlike KiwiSaver - are not subsidised by the state.

 

Kiwis who saved with such schemes discover too late that whatever they receive of their overseas government-administered investment is forfeit. In effect, WINZ is helping itself to Kiwis’ retirement savings. Many New Zealanders who have worked here for over thirty years are getting less NZ Super than some who have lived here for just ten years.

 

Even New Zealanders who have never worked overseas are penalised. They have lost their right to NZ Super simply because they live with a person who is eligible for a pension from another country.

 

The Government justifies the deduction by saying that those who had the opportunity to work overseas should not be enjoying an unfair advantage!

 

WINZ's interpretation of pension law contradicts a long-standing source of pride in New Zealand: though the Government keeps insisting that its “universal” superannuation is not income-tested, the direct deduction policy relieves Kiwi superannuitants of $185 million every year.

 

For 52,000 retired Kiwis and their families, WINZ is the face of elder abuse. Protests will be mounted from 9.00am to 4.00pm tomorrow outside WINZ service centres in Takapuna, Auckland's Queen St, Tauranga and New Plymouth, as well as smaller demonstrations at a number of other centres.

 

For further information: www.nzpensionabuse.org

 

 

Her other point is the unique accident compensation system which takes the fault out of compensation. Everyone is insured. The pay outs are low for damages but should also pay for alterations to your home etc.

 

The main word here John is SHOULD of course - but imho the *administration* of this scheme leaves a lot to be desired etc This is perhaps why there are calls for major Commissions and Investigations into the staff practices underway currently etc For example, http://www.dol.govt.nz/consultation/physio...onsreceived.asp

 

It is the very opposite of US damages, staggeringly high and paid for by higher consumer prices and by frightening insurance premiums for motor, medicine, lawyers etc. We all pay somehow.

 

Don't forget this ACC scheme is funded by levys as well therefore a person or business can pay huge premiums for years and then whenever a claim is required - discover they do not just lose a home but also their family and everything else unfortunately

 

The NZ no fault scheme takes all the money out of court fees and lawyers. So you are from IOM, you are seriously injured in NZ. You qualify for the no fault scheme even if only a visitor, but you do not get as much as if you could sue. It does not pay for repatriation and does not provide income replacement damages. So you end up in IOM on benefit.

 

Correct John - hence the need for Income Insurance if tripping downunder perhaps? But I guess if you are an injured manx you should get some medical care needs met under the NHS as well perhaps? I have also scanned a few discussions about reviews and dispute tribunals, or what some call the *star chambers* which are available technically here for the injured person to try and obtain claim coverage &/or any entitlements - but most will need to pay money or legal fees to access any advisement etc Many folks cannot manage such a process John hence many subsistence sickness and invalid beneficiaries are struggling as a result of injuries sadly.

 

FYI there is also now another investigation into the adverse actions of casemanagers and their networks in relation to some of this stuff too etc John. Most particularly as a result of the KPI Incentives where anonymous or malicious information was resulting in 80% exits etc There have been admissions that identifying overpayment or underpayment when these case managers mix up ACC and Social Security is virtually impossible too so everybody including disabled volunteers are oft regarded as fraudsters or malingerers and collapse while trying to prove their innocence sadly

 

This is one quote extracted from the MSM fyi

 

"The ACC Minister recently fronted up to the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee to explain the department’s planned spending for the next financial year. We were told about the new values being adopted by ACC and that it was treating people as people – this is while both the Minister and CEO are still in denial about the way that ACC investigates claimants, despite worrying stories about investigations being exposed in the media.

 

Though the Minister says most of the claims referred to private investigators resulted in them being validated, the contracts with the investigators clearly say that 85% of referred cases should result in ways other than validation.

 

Only days after the select committee hearing we found out that ACC is conducting an inquiry into its fraud unit. The document outlining the inquiry was created by ACC on the 11 May, just days after the media exposed the way ACC investigates claimants. This inquiry includes reviewing contracts with private investigators.

 

It doesn’t take much to put two and two together and see that even ACC realises it is falling short of the mark to treat people as people. The Minister and the CEO need to stop looking at this situation through rose-tinted glasses – you can’t have cultural change when it isn’t reflected from the top"

 

Well damages levels in different countries differ widely. The NZ system is designed for residents primarily and is an extension of their welfare state.

 

If you travel take out adequate medical and accident insurance such as lumps sums (for loss of an arm, leg, sight etc) to cover you if unable to work again and to cover getting you home. It doesn't matter where you are going to.

 

I agree ensure a travel policy covers for lump sums and any ongoing rehabilitation or career losses incurred etc Sorry I went rambling completely off and away down into some different side tracks here

[Ready Broke]

JESUS fucking Christ on a stick! Could you make that any longer?

 

Any chance of a link in future?

 

PS - you owe me a new scroll button on my mouse.

[nessa]

LOL Ready Broke - yeah tis a cold winter day here.... so am inside and fluffing around online again while I can

 

I even see I forgot the uploads as well as heaps more links of course - but done me dash now - so mebbe another time I will do that instead lol

[Ready Broke]

LQTM - maybe I can find me an avatar that matches yours in terms of pissingmeofness in the meantime...

[Static]

and also me taking the p*** out of Ourtess which maybe i shouldn't have done

 

It's a forum, that's what you do.

But I'd give the old 'yah, boo, you don't live here' a rest.

 

Why? You don't live here!

 

Neither does the Queen, and she owns the place.

 

Paging Manx Nationalists...probably deserves a topic in it's own right!

 

And thanks John for the details regarding Nessa's posts, quite interesting.

[John Wright]

A really short post

 

No matter what your social benefits system or how effective your courts I think we have identified two things

 

1. You need private health care insurance including travel insurance just in case

 

2. You need some for of PHI or critical ilnes cover just in case you are injured and cannot revciover damages. Or if you become ill and cannot work

 

That applies if you live in NZ, IOM, US or anywhere.

 

They are not cheap individually, but in a scheme provided by an employer they can be resinab;e. Go for a scheme next pay round instead of an increase in pay.

[nessa]

A really short post

 

No matter what your social benefits system or how effective your courts I think we have identified two things

 

1. You need private health care insurance including travel insurance just in case

 

2. You need some for of PHI or critical ilnes cover just in case you are injured and cannot revciover damages. Or if you become ill and cannot work

 

That applies if you live in NZ, IOM, US or anywhere.

 

They are not cheap individually, but in a scheme provided by an employer they can be resinab;e. Go for a scheme next pay round instead of an increase in pay.

 

Well said John!!