Changes To Health Agreement With Uk

[ai_Droid]

From a visitors point of view. many elderly persons visit IOM and travel insurance is extreemly prohibitive, if you have a ore-existing condition. My parents enjoy visiting IOM but would not be able to get insurance because of their health. This will make many visitors think twice before coming to the island.

 

They'll get emergency treatment, and then travel home for any ongoing. It's not that far...

[Invigilator]

From a visitors point of view. many elderly persons visit IOM and travel insurance is extreemly prohibitive, if you have a ore-existing condition. My parents enjoy visiting IOM but would not be able to get insurance because of their health. This will make many visitors think twice before coming to the island.

 

They'll get emergency treatment, and then travel home for any ongoing. It's not that far...

 

Not that easy, especially if the person concerned has a heart attack or a stroke. Is it your contention that visitors to the IOM should be in perfect health?

[GD4ELI]

They'll get emergency treatment, and then travel home for any ongoing. It's not that far...

What if they need time in hospital *after* the emergency treatment? For this they will have to pay.

[Skeddan]

Again we need to get into the EU, urgently. Even Iceland is now actively debating and considering it.

Iceland is a sovereign state, IoM isn't, hence Iceland is eligible to become a member state of the EU, whereas IoM isn't. The suggestion is as realistic and attainable as suggesting IoM should join the UN. You have to deal with the question of how IoM could attain independence as a sovereign state - ignoring that thorny question doesn't make the problem go away.

 

I'm not saying that joining the EU would be a bad thing, just that this isn't much of a plan as it ignores the single greatest hurdle that stands in the way of IoM joining the EU, and makes an almighty assumption that this can and will somehow be taken care of. (How?).

 

If IoM needs to get into the EU urgently, then the question of IoM's constitutional relationship with the UK and IoM's status in international law needs to be seriously looked at. Until unanswered questions of IoM's sovereignty are resolved, the notion of IoM joining the EU is just pie in the sky.

[John Wright]

Oh Skeddan you do mislead and use smoke and lmirrors

 

Gibraltar is in, via UK, admittedley

 

Go back to Kilbrandon, if we want independence it is ours for the taking, if we wanted independence within EU and to join UN HMG cannot, would not and will not stop us.

 

They might be a bit worried if we sought independence outside EU

 

The only thing that stops is is invalid argumanet above, and Skeddan if tyoou van find any constitutional lawyer who will support you, there is £100 for charity wiating and fear and our own unwillingness to face that future and acheive it.

 

And no I will not waste time by debating it with you.

 

Its politics and reality, not a set of unwritten rules you can make up and or misinterpret to suit your self.

 

So it would need an IOM act in Tynwald and an IOM Act, like the Canada or Aus ar NZ Acts, in Westminster. Not rocket science.

[ballaughbiker]

Just getting back to the real life dealings with insurance companies, its not that simple Gladys, as I know only too well. I was very well insured against illness preventing me from doing my job. Despite having excellent health, the premiums were eye watering but the promise of 'everything sorted' made it seem worthwile. In 1999, I caught a virus which resulted in permanent damage to my balance preventing me doing my job. It was a disaster finacially and emotionally but I thought, hey no probs, I've got that insurance I (and my employer) paid dearly for.

 

A claim was put in and they tried everything to get out of it, trawling through medical records of years ago and demanding I have all sorts of untried treatment because if it could be fixed, no claim so no payout. This lasted over two years. They did pay out in the end but a reduced amount. Had I not been in a strong Union, who fought my case, I doubt if I would have got what I did. Ever since then I have a healthy scepticism of insurance companies and life in general.

 

If you, say, break a leg falling down on the way home from the pub one night, that's going to be fine. The treatment has a reasonably predictable outcome, 6 weeks in plaster and then back to normal and insurance companies like this. What they don't like is long term disease with protracted treatment. They usually put in exclusions to cover their asses in case of something like this might result in say 9 months in hospital as in one case I remember. Lets say, for example, you are a diabetic. They will put an exclusion in saying no cover for illness caused by diabetes OR ANYTHING CONNECTED WITH IT. So you go off shopping in Liverpool for the day and have the misfortune to suffer a stroke. The faceless suit will think, hey that could have been caused by diabetes so no payout. What do you do then after another suit decides you've come to the end of A&E treatment?

 

Yes, these are extreme examples but its just an illustration of how insurance companies work. One good thing is that A&E is covered which is far from certain in the EU. My greatest fear is being knocked off my bike in Euroland and being unconcious and unable to fight my corner regarding payment for treatment. They will go through my things and find no EHIC and the inevitable question will be "who's paying?". If this cannot be determined as I'm unconcious, I know (yes I've asked) that treatment, if any, will be very limited.

 

Of course insurance is required as reptriation is never covered but if you are young and fit it's not a problem and it's cheap. If you have a pre-existing condition, it will be like trying to get car insurance with a drink/dangerous driving stamp in your licence. No one wants to know unless you are willing to pay ££££££££s.

 

I am the complete opposite of a drama queen but this move worries me greatly and I forsee big problems for a small percentage of the manx poulation unless the IOM Gov back some sort of a scheme. I'm thinking of paying my voluntary NI to Newcastle in the future. Watch this space.

[Skeddan]

Oh Skeddan you do mislead and use smoke and lmirrors

How is it misleading to state that to become a member state of the EU the country has to be a sovereign state? Or is it misleading to say that the constitutional relationship is not clear? Or do you think it misleading to say that until it is clear that the route to independence is uncertain? What exactly have I said that you find misleading?

Gibraltar is in, via UK, admittedley

OK if this is what you mean by joining the EU - but that's quite different from becoming a member state.

 

Go back to Kilbrandon, if we want independence it is ours for the taking, if we wanted independence within EU and to join UN HMG cannot, would not and will not stop us.

I don't think Kibrandon said any such thing, or gives the slightest support for such a notion. If I'm mistaken, I'd be pleased to be put right on that - could you provide the reference to the relevant section in the report.

 

Jeffrey Jowell Q.C. put it quite well when he said:

 

Kilbrandon’s confidence in its bare assertions about the paramount power of the UK over the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man was by no means matched by its tentative attempts to identify the source of that power, or to delineate its reach. Its justification of the primacy of the UK’s power was ultimately based not on any legal source but upon a general notion of de facto control, coupled with the well known Dicean fallback of the sovereignty of Parliament.

 

http://www.jerseylaw.je/Publications/jerse...ct2001jlr2.aspx

 

You say 'HMG cannot, would not and will not stop us if we want independence'. What basis have you for making such a claim? Do you think HMG could not and would not have stopped Hong Kong making a claim for independence prior to 1999 - and would have been able to legally grant this? Was independence there for Hong Kong 'for the taking'-? No, because the sovereignty of Hong Kong did not belong to HMG. You clearly assume the sovereignty of IoM belongs to HMG or the Crown, but Kilbrandon does not say this. That is the point which is in contention - you may disagree - ok - but Kilbrandon does not support your view - the question is unresolved, even if it is settled in your mind.

 

And no I will not waste time by debating it with you.

Cheap and easy way out. Come on - the question of the constitutional relationship is not clear - as noted by St. John Bates, Jeffrey Jowell Q.C. and others.

The only thing that stops is is invalid argumanet above, and Skeddan if tyoou van find any constitutional lawyer who will support you, there is £100 for charity wiating

I think you will find most agreeing with me that IoM's and the Crown Dependencies constitutional relationship with the UK is not clear.

 

Its politics and reality, not a set of unwritten rules you can make up and or misinterpret to suit your self.

It's a matter of law - English Law, International Law, and no you can't make these up or misinterpret to suit yourself. Examine the legislation - it's not as straightforward as you might think. OK, you won't waste time doing so - instead just make up what you think this says and make up what you think Kilbrandon says to support this. I'd happily accept an robust argument that proves the sovereignty of IoM does belong to the Crown and that it is not instead held as per a bailee or trustee relationship or the like. By contrast you seem to refuse to even consider any argument that is contrary to your view.

 

So it would need an IOM act in Tynwald and an IOM Act, like the Canada or Aus ar NZ Acts, in Westminster. Not rocket science.

That would be so assuming the sovereignty of IoM belongs to the Crown. If not, this would be no more valid or legitimate than Acts in the HK legislature and Westminster would have been for establishing HK as an independent sovereign state prior to 1999. i.e. it wouldn't get on the table, let alone get off the ground.

 

Here again you just reiterate your big assumption that the sovereignty of IoM belongs to the Crown - and give zilch to back it up except your notion of what you claim the Kilbrandon Report says. By contrast I go along with Jowell's reading of Kilbrandon i.e. that the relationship is "ultimately based not on any legal source but upon a general notion of de facto control".

 

Can I claim the £100 for the charity?

[John Wright]

No because whilst it is shrouded in the mists of time what is unquestionnable and different to Hong Kong is that sovereignty lies somewhere with and between HMG and Tynwald on bejgalf of the two separate crowns, or sovereignties, ie the UK and Manx peoples, so if they both agree qed

 

Hong Kong had a different complexion, a third party, China what is more the largest part of HK was leased anf UK did not have soverignty. HK was a colony.

 

Where do you say sovereignty is, if it isn't somewhere between the two, If it is you don't need to decide exactly where it did lie if you both agree where it is going to lie.

 

The reason I won't debate is that you are so bogged down in the deatil you are cannot see a way out. There is a solution whenever we decide to put one forward and agree it.

[Skeddan]

No because whilst it is shrouded in the mists of time...

1765 and even 1610 is not 'shrouded in the mists of time' - the relevant legislation and Acts of Parliament and Letters Patent are enrolled and a matter of record.

 

what is unquestionnable and different to Hong Kong is that sovereignty lies somewhere with and between HMG and Tynwald on bejgalf of the two separate crowns, or sovereignties, ie the UK and Manx peoples, so if they both agree qed

Unquestionable?

 

Hong Kong had a different complexion, a third party, China what is more the largest part of HK was leased anf UK did not have soverignty. HK was a colony.

What makes you so sure it is so different?

 

Where do you say sovereignty is, if it isn't somewhere between the two, If it is you don't need to decide exactly where it did lie if you both agree where it is going to lie.

Agreed - if it does lie between the two. I can understand your reasoning from that perspective - but that hinges on the assumption that it is between 'the two' (and ignores the evidence it isn't so simple).

 

The reason I won't debate is that you are so bogged down in the deatil you are cannot see a way out.

Chain of title may involve looking into detail, but to dismiss it as something irrelevant one shouldn't be bogged down in... Hmmm. Prescription/adverse possession does not override statute law and treaties. You say it is 'unquestionable' that sovereignty lies somewhere with and between HMG and Tynwald - well that's making that big assumption again.

 

You see it as getting bogged down in detail. I see it as questioning an assumption, and instead of cutting corners, doing the due diligence to examine this - that involves getting into the detail, examining the legislation, constitutional relationship etc. Cutting corners and making this leap of faith with eyes wide shut may give simple and easy answers, but it doesn't make it so. I take it that given your assumptions you think examining this is a waste of time, so you haven't bothered to consider the question or look into it. However as you said, this is "not a set of unwritten rules you can make up and or misinterpret to suit your self."

 

If it was as simple as you think, perhaps you could explain why IoM was not given dominion status and already achieved independence - or at least recognised as having a right of self-determination and listed as a non-self-governing territory (after all it has not attained a full independence, but remains a dependency). What makes IoM 'special'?

 

First though could you answer the earlier questions - where does Kilbrandon give reason to think 'independence is there for the taking'? What basis have you for claiming IoM could become a member state of the EU if it wanted - other than making an almighty assumption that there is nothing in the way of attaining independence? My point is don't count on joining the EU as a member state as a solution unless you know you're on firm ground that this is an option, and know clearly how this can be reached. You don't know that - because you can't be bothered to look into it, because you think you know the answers.

[Skeddan]

I forsee big problems for a small percentage of the manx poulation unless the IOM Gov back some sort of a scheme.

ballaugbiker - sorry for going off at a tangent there. Point though is there is no point chasing rainbows or pinning everything on EU membership as a solution. That only diverts from realistic ways of dealing with this.

 

I'd agree with you - IoMG should back some sort of scheme or perhaps alternatively enter into a bilateral agreement with EU for reciprocal medical treatment along same lines as per with the UK. Either of those options seem realistic and achievable.

[Snaipyr]

I forsee big problems for a small percentage of the manx poulation unless the IOM Gov back some sort of a scheme.

ballaugbiker - sorry for going off at a tangent there. Point though is there is no point chasing rainbows or pinning everything on EU membership as a solution. That only diverts from realistic ways of dealing with this.

 

I'd agree with you - IoMG should back some sort of scheme or perhaps alternatively enter into a bilateral agreement with EU for reciprocal medical treatment along same lines as per with the UK. Either of those options seem realistic and achievable.

 

Agreed, and if higher education could be included it would save a lot us of dosh on International Student fees.

[Lawnmower]

Again we need to get into the EU, urgently. Even Iceland is now actively debating and considering it.

 

Trouble is, as we are one of the most, if not the most, prosperous countries in Europe, we would be a net contributor to the European coffers and would not receive the largesse given to Ireland and other countries in recent years. We would become poorer per capita as a result. Otherwise, joining Europe would be a good idea.

[x-in-man]

Ive had a quick scan throu' the topic - please excuse me if it has been raised - but

 

Insurance Premium Tax. (IPT)

 

Does anyone know if this is a UK only Tax - added to UK issued policies - is the proportion of IPT collected on island issued policies kept on island - or does it go to the UK.

 

I only ask because I expect many will seek policies offered by UK companies, and therefore attract IPT.

 

If IPT is not applicable to Manx Policies, should those seeking cover from off island policy providers be entitled to a deduction of IPT?

[BigDave]

IPT is not applicable on the Island. UK insurance companies know not to apply it to IOM residents. I've never been charged IPT over the years buying various insurance products including motor, home, health and travel insurance.

 

Quick edit to add: One company once did try to apply IPT to one of my policies, but quickly removed it when I pointed out they shouldn't be doing so!

[x-in-man]

IPT is not applicable on the Island. UK insurance companies know not to apply it to IOM residents. I've never been charged IPT over the years buying various insurance products including motor, home, health and travel insurance.

 

Quick edit to add: One company once did try to apply IPT to one of my policies, but quickly removed it when I pointed out they shouldn't be doing so!

 

ooooh - so - Churchill (who do my wifes car) are in for a nasty letter then - after charging IPT for the last 5 years then!