British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
#1036
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
Source of your "well known fact", please?
Anyone can pay into the National insurance scheme. Voluntarily, while living abroad or non-national. There is a very convenient chart on the HMRC website of how much one should pay based on category. Immigration could have just as easily required the payment of and proof of payment into the insurance system for a specified number of years before qualifying.
Anyone can pay into the National insurance scheme. Voluntarily, while living abroad or non-national. There is a very convenient chart on the HMRC website of how much one should pay based on category. Immigration could have just as easily required the payment of and proof of payment into the insurance system for a specified number of years before qualifying.
#1037
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
Not true. It's 67 now (with plans to raise the minimum age). Also, you can access medicare if you are permanently disable and have never paid into the system. If you receive SSI, (the "welfare" portion of Social Security - which even if you are disabled, you are switched to once you hit a certain age, even if you receive SSA) you may not retain in your ownership assets exceeding $2,000 (the figure I had in 2008 - may have changed since). There is no "allowance" for housing, vehicle, clothes, jewellery, etc. It's an 'across the board' number. If your assets exceed that number, the government puts a lien on and seizes your assets so that they can sell your assets and recoup their costs for your care prior to your death. That includes your house. They will sell it and split any overflow of proceeds to your heirs. That is, IF there are any proceeds left.
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/credits3.htm
US citizens who don't qualify for SS disability through work receive SSI (Supplemental Security Income). SSI is means tested, and immigrants to the US who have been here less than five years can't access any Federal means tested benefits.
#1038
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 85
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
Mmmmmmm......you can't access Social Security disability unless you've earned enough work quarters. (I paused because I had to look it up). Here's the link below.
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/credits3.htm
US citizens who don't qualify for SS disability through work receive SSI (Supplemental Security Income). SSI is means tested, and immigrants to the US who have been here less than five years can't access any Federal means tested benefits.
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/credits3.htm
US citizens who don't qualify for SS disability through work receive SSI (Supplemental Security Income). SSI is means tested, and immigrants to the US who have been here less than five years can't access any Federal means tested benefits.
#1039
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2010
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 9,662
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
[QUOTE=alliekat;10435992]
Last edited by SanDiegogirl; Dec 16th 2012 at 7:17 pm. Reason: Formatting all wrong.....
#1040
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 85
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
??
Last edited by alliekat; Dec 16th 2012 at 7:24 pm. Reason: Quoted post deleted
#1041
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2010
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 9,662
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
Source of your "well known fact", please?
Source??
Yes they were prepared to pay for insurance and the mother has her own savings. The family said as much in the article.
Anyone can pay into the National insurance scheme. Voluntarily, while living abroad or non-national. There is a very convenient chart on the HMRC website of how much one should pay based on category. Immigration could have just as easily required the payment of and proof of payment into the insurance system for a specified number of years before qualifying.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm
Did you know that loads of British folks with the same access to NHS don't pay in and continue to access NHS? For self employed folks, for instance, the weekly pay in is about 3 quid and some folks opt out for decades, figuring "if I get caught they can only go back a few/several (low end - under 10) years." For some it's worth the risk not to pay their 150 quid per year to get away with something like that. I have found that "stick it to the government" is quite a prevalent attitude in the UK, especially among the children of the baby boomer generation.
I'm sorry, but what does US health care costs have to do with this article, or my reaction to it? I certainly am no fan of it, as I am an individual who was bankrupted by a single major medical event just as I was coming out of college and 'starting' life as it were. I'm no more a fan of US health care than I am of these new UK immigration policies, and I never said I was.
Not true. It's 67 now (with plans to raise the minimum age). Also, you can access medicare if you are permanently disable and have never paid into the system. If you receive SSI, (the "welfare" portion of Social Security - which even if you are disabled, you are switched to once you hit a certain age, even if you receive SSA) you may not retain in your ownership assets exceeding $2,000 (the figure I had in 2008 - may have changed since). There is no "allowance" for housing, vehicle, clothes, jewellery, etc. It's an 'across the board' number. If your assets exceed that number, the government puts a lien on and seizes your assets so that they can sell your assets and recoup their costs for your care prior to your death. That includes your house. They will sell it and split any overflow of proceeds to your heirs. That is, IF there are any proceeds left.
Premiums and deductibles are part and parcel to Medicare. That is why one should not rely on only Medicare (and everyone is told this, or should know it!). It is why there are so many supplemental insurance policies for older folks. If one is too poor for their own supplemental policy, then he/she most likely is eligible for whatever state medicaid program there is- which covers deductibles, pays medicare premiums and provides prescription coverage.
That said, there are uninformed folks that will rely solely on Medicare for elderly health insurance. It is a huge mistake, and the system was only meant as a supplement program. "SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME"
While I respect your opinion, your information is: a) incomplete, and; b) not at all having to do with the article.
In the article, the woman has her own savings and the family is willing to provide private health insurance for her. That means she would not be accessing NHS.
What is appalling is that under the new scheme, the family is completely unable to be reunited, even if financially independent. AND if the family is financially independent, then the parent MUST stay in their country of origin - because that means that the family can afford nursing care in the other country. THAT is what is appalling.
As far as NHS being lax about who accesses it: I did not find that to be the case AT ALL while living in England. I had a kidney stone while there and not one surgery, pharmacy, or hospital let me in/offered me service for free. I eventually had to come back the the US for medical care because the cost of the surgery I needed exceeded 10,000 quid and my insurance was a policy of reimbursement rather than providing the service. That is a fairly common arrangement with travel/expat insurance. There are some (costly) exceptions.
Source??
Yes they were prepared to pay for insurance and the mother has her own savings. The family said as much in the article.
Anyone can pay into the National insurance scheme. Voluntarily, while living abroad or non-national. There is a very convenient chart on the HMRC website of how much one should pay based on category. Immigration could have just as easily required the payment of and proof of payment into the insurance system for a specified number of years before qualifying.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm
Did you know that loads of British folks with the same access to NHS don't pay in and continue to access NHS? For self employed folks, for instance, the weekly pay in is about 3 quid and some folks opt out for decades, figuring "if I get caught they can only go back a few/several (low end - under 10) years." For some it's worth the risk not to pay their 150 quid per year to get away with something like that. I have found that "stick it to the government" is quite a prevalent attitude in the UK, especially among the children of the baby boomer generation.
I'm sorry, but what does US health care costs have to do with this article, or my reaction to it? I certainly am no fan of it, as I am an individual who was bankrupted by a single major medical event just as I was coming out of college and 'starting' life as it were. I'm no more a fan of US health care than I am of these new UK immigration policies, and I never said I was.
Not true. It's 67 now (with plans to raise the minimum age). Also, you can access medicare if you are permanently disable and have never paid into the system. If you receive SSI, (the "welfare" portion of Social Security - which even if you are disabled, you are switched to once you hit a certain age, even if you receive SSA) you may not retain in your ownership assets exceeding $2,000 (the figure I had in 2008 - may have changed since). There is no "allowance" for housing, vehicle, clothes, jewellery, etc. It's an 'across the board' number. If your assets exceed that number, the government puts a lien on and seizes your assets so that they can sell your assets and recoup their costs for your care prior to your death. That includes your house. They will sell it and split any overflow of proceeds to your heirs. That is, IF there are any proceeds left.
Premiums and deductibles are part and parcel to Medicare. That is why one should not rely on only Medicare (and everyone is told this, or should know it!). It is why there are so many supplemental insurance policies for older folks. If one is too poor for their own supplemental policy, then he/she most likely is eligible for whatever state medicaid program there is- which covers deductibles, pays medicare premiums and provides prescription coverage.
That said, there are uninformed folks that will rely solely on Medicare for elderly health insurance. It is a huge mistake, and the system was only meant as a supplement program. "SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME"
While I respect your opinion, your information is: a) incomplete, and; b) not at all having to do with the article.
In the article, the woman has her own savings and the family is willing to provide private health insurance for her. That means she would not be accessing NHS.
What is appalling is that under the new scheme, the family is completely unable to be reunited, even if financially independent. AND if the family is financially independent, then the parent MUST stay in their country of origin - because that means that the family can afford nursing care in the other country. THAT is what is appalling.
As far as NHS being lax about who accesses it: I did not find that to be the case AT ALL while living in England. I had a kidney stone while there and not one surgery, pharmacy, or hospital let me in/offered me service for free. I eventually had to come back the the US for medical care because the cost of the surgery I needed exceeded 10,000 quid and my insurance was a policy of reimbursement rather than providing the service. That is a fairly common arrangement with travel/expat insurance. There are some (costly) exceptions.
- Source: Google "Life Expectancy United Kingdom" and plenty of articles come up. One of the first is a report on the BBC with figures issued by the Office of National Statistics.
Google: Health costs for elderly in United Kingdom. Sorry, could not find article on costs in final years of life, but did come across this article in the Guardian about the escalating costs for the elderly
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ju...olicy-exchange
- Yes, the children in the article did offer to pay for 5 years of private medical insurance - what then?
- National Insurance contributions are paid by UK residents (usually employed or self employed) in order to receive a State pension at retirement. To be eligible for a State pension the payment period is now 30 years. One can pay voluntary contributions (I think only up to 6 years back)to make up a gap in such payments. National Insurance contributions stop at retirement age.
Are you seriously suggesting that foreign nationals (not resident in the UK) can pay into the National Insurance system (30 years worth) to receive a State pension in the UK?
- What has National Insurance Contributions got to do with elderly health care costs in the UK? Health care/social care are paid for out of taxes. Hence my original statement that the lady in the article, at age 64, will not have paid UK taxes.
- Only mentioned US health care costs for the elderly, because when individuals realise that they are on the hook for medical costs for their Mum or Dad, getting them to the US suddenly does not seem like such a good idea. With the "free" medical costs in the UK, the future liability of aging Mum and Dad on the public service does not enter the equation.
- Medicare is still received at 65. How do I know?....husband just qualified for it when he hit 65 in July.
- While Medicare is not perfect, it truly is a lifeline to the majority of US elderly, compared to private individual healthcare policies.
- Your statement that this family is financially independent and could pay for the mother's ongoing healthcare and/or nursing care is a pure guess on your part. They have offered 5 years of private health insurance not, potentially another 14 years of medical/nursing care.
- Sorry, to hear that you had a poor experience with the NHS. If you had travel/expat insurance, then as a visitor to the UK they were doing their job by not letting you in or offering you anything for free. Emergency treatment should have been offered you.
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that you returned to the US for treatment. Your policy was one which reimbursed you costs instead of agreeing to pay for costs to allow treatment to take place. You were unable to pay the costs up front. Why is this a costly exception to the NHS service?
You chose this policy surely, so should have been aware of its short-comings.
Apart from receiving emergency treatment, did you expect them to perform the surgery and then bill you once you got back to the US?
(Expect more 'flaming" to come my way)
#1042
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
Some further comments:
- Source: Google "Life Expectancy United Kingdom" and plenty of articles come up. One of the first is a report on the BBC with figures issued by the Office of National Statistics.
Google: Health costs for elderly in United Kingdom. Sorry, could not find article on costs in final years of life, but did come across this article in the Guardian about the escalating costs for the elderly
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ju...olicy-exchange
- Yes, the children in the article did offer to pay for 5 years of private medical insurance - what then?
- National Insurance contributions are paid by UK residents (usually employed or self employed) in order to receive a State pension at retirement. To be eligible for a State pension the payment period is now 30 years. One can pay voluntary contributions (I think only up to 6 years back)to make up a gap in such payments. National Insurance contributions stop at retirement age.
Are you seriously suggesting that foreign nationals (not resident in the UK) can pay into the National Insurance system (30 years worth) to receive a State pension in the UK?
- What has National Insurance Contributions got to do with elderly health care costs in the UK? Health care/social care are paid for out of taxes. Hence my original statement that the lady in the article, at age 64, will not have paid UK taxes.
- Only mentioned US health care costs for the elderly, because when individuals realise that they are on the hook for medical costs for their Mum or Dad, getting them to the US suddenly does not seem like such a good idea. With the "free" medical costs in the UK, the future liability of aging Mum and Dad on the public service does not enter the equation.
- Medicare is still received at 65. How do I know?....husband just qualified for it when he hit 65 in July.
- While Medicare is not perfect, it truly is a lifeline to the majority of US elderly, compared to private individual healthcare policies.
- Your statement that this family is financially independent and could pay for the mother's ongoing healthcare and/or nursing care is a pure guess on your part. They have offered 5 years of private health insurance not, potentially another 14 years of medical/nursing care.
- Sorry, to hear that you had a poor experience with the NHS. If you had travel/expat insurance, then as a visitor to the UK they were doing their job by not letting you in or offering you anything for free. Emergency treatment should have been offered you.
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that you returned to the US for treatment. Your policy was one which reimbursed you costs instead of agreeing to pay for costs to allow treatment to take place. You were unable to pay the costs up front. Why is this a costly exception to the NHS service?
You chose this policy surely, so should have been aware of its short-comings.
Apart from receiving emergency treatment, did you expect them to perform the surgery and then bill you once you got back to the US?
(Expect more 'flaming" to come my way)
- Source: Google "Life Expectancy United Kingdom" and plenty of articles come up. One of the first is a report on the BBC with figures issued by the Office of National Statistics.
Google: Health costs for elderly in United Kingdom. Sorry, could not find article on costs in final years of life, but did come across this article in the Guardian about the escalating costs for the elderly
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ju...olicy-exchange
- Yes, the children in the article did offer to pay for 5 years of private medical insurance - what then?
- National Insurance contributions are paid by UK residents (usually employed or self employed) in order to receive a State pension at retirement. To be eligible for a State pension the payment period is now 30 years. One can pay voluntary contributions (I think only up to 6 years back)to make up a gap in such payments. National Insurance contributions stop at retirement age.
Are you seriously suggesting that foreign nationals (not resident in the UK) can pay into the National Insurance system (30 years worth) to receive a State pension in the UK?
- What has National Insurance Contributions got to do with elderly health care costs in the UK? Health care/social care are paid for out of taxes. Hence my original statement that the lady in the article, at age 64, will not have paid UK taxes.
- Only mentioned US health care costs for the elderly, because when individuals realise that they are on the hook for medical costs for their Mum or Dad, getting them to the US suddenly does not seem like such a good idea. With the "free" medical costs in the UK, the future liability of aging Mum and Dad on the public service does not enter the equation.
- Medicare is still received at 65. How do I know?....husband just qualified for it when he hit 65 in July.
- While Medicare is not perfect, it truly is a lifeline to the majority of US elderly, compared to private individual healthcare policies.
- Your statement that this family is financially independent and could pay for the mother's ongoing healthcare and/or nursing care is a pure guess on your part. They have offered 5 years of private health insurance not, potentially another 14 years of medical/nursing care.
- Sorry, to hear that you had a poor experience with the NHS. If you had travel/expat insurance, then as a visitor to the UK they were doing their job by not letting you in or offering you anything for free. Emergency treatment should have been offered you.
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that you returned to the US for treatment. Your policy was one which reimbursed you costs instead of agreeing to pay for costs to allow treatment to take place. You were unable to pay the costs up front. Why is this a costly exception to the NHS service?
You chose this policy surely, so should have been aware of its short-comings.
Apart from receiving emergency treatment, did you expect them to perform the surgery and then bill you once you got back to the US?
(Expect more 'flaming" to come my way)
Just sayin'.
#1043
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2010
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 9,662
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
Agreed. My point was that she returned to the US to have treatment because she was unable to pay the upfront costs of her treatment in the UK and then wait for reimbursement.
Not sure what the OP meant by (costly) exceptions to the NHS system. Was she expecting the system to perform the surgery and then bill her in the US? Really?
Not sure what the OP meant by (costly) exceptions to the NHS system. Was she expecting the system to perform the surgery and then bill her in the US? Really?
#1044
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
Agreed. My point was that she returned to the US to have treatment because she was unable to pay the upfront costs of her treatment in the UK and then wait for reimbursement.
Not sure what the OP meant by (costly) exceptions to the NHS system. Was she expecting the system to perform the surgery and then bill her in the US? Really?
Not sure what the OP meant by (costly) exceptions to the NHS system. Was she expecting the system to perform the surgery and then bill her in the US? Really?
#1045
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 85
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
Quote from the article:
"We as sponsors would sign a document guaranteeing that Nadya would not take benefits for at least five years. I know public money is short, but we are happy to pay for private healthcare and she has savings of her own."
- National Insurance contributions are paid by UK residents (usually employed or self employed) in order to receive a State pension at retirement. To be eligible for a State pension the payment period is now 30 years. One can pay voluntary contributions (I think only up to 6 years back)to make up a gap in such payments. National Insurance contributions stop at retirement age.
Are you seriously suggesting that foreign nationals (not resident in the UK) can pay into the National Insurance system (30 years worth) to receive a State pension in the UK?
- What has National Insurance Contributions got to do with elderly health care costs in the UK? Health care/social care are paid for out of taxes. Hence my original statement that the lady in the article, at age 64, will not have paid UK taxes.
The issue is: THERE IS NO OPTION FOR REUNIFICATION FOR FAMILY MEMBERS IN THIS SITUATION. NOT EVEN PAYING YOUR OWN HEALTH CARE COSTS FOR LIFE!!! This is completely unreasonable!!! Nobody is saying that she should move to the UK and be immediately eligible for NHS and elder care, but if the family can afford elder care in the mom's home country, then they can afford it in the UK!! Why not let them reunify under those conditions!!!????
Only mentioned US health care costs for the elderly, because when individuals realise that they are on the hook for medical costs for their Mum or Dad, getting them to the US suddenly does not seem like such a good idea. With the "free" medical costs in the UK, the future liability of aging Mum and Dad on the public service does not enter the equation.
- Medicare is still received at 65. How do I know?....husband just qualified for it when he hit 65 in July.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/justmedicare.htm
While Medicare is not perfect, it truly is a lifeline to the majority of US elderly, compared to private individual healthcare policies.
- Your statement that this family is financially independent and could pay for the mother's ongoing healthcare and/or nursing care is a pure guess on your part. They have offered 5 years of private health insurance not, potentially another 14 years of medical/nursing care.
Sorry, to hear that you had a poor experience with the NHS. If you had travel/expat insurance, then as a visitor to the UK they were doing their job by not letting you in or offering you anything for free. Emergency treatment should have been offered you.
However, this has nothing to do with the fact that you returned to the US for treatment. Your policy was one which reimbursed you costs instead of agreeing to pay for costs to allow treatment to take place. You were unable to pay the costs up front. Why is this a costly exception to the NHS service?
You chose this policy surely, so should have been aware of its short-comings.
Based on my life experience as well as what I thought might be common sense, I evidently wrongly presumed that I could accomplish that task (get forms filled out by doctors I was paying to visit) to trigger my coverage in the event of an emergency.
At no time did I expect/act/want anyone to do anything for me for free, but I bought insurance for a reason and the UK health professionals simply refused to facilitate my ability to utilize my policy.
That said, I went home because my coverage was/is better in the US, and I will probably continue to do the same (come to the US for medical treatment) because the UK is so far behind the times. In fact, the UK has the highest mortality rate in the westernized world for cancer, and I simply cannot afford to take that risk. Thus I will never become a British citizen and I will keep my US insurance.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...in-Europe.html
(other sources available as well)
Apart from receiving emergency treatment, did you expect them to perform the surgery and then bill you once you got back to the US?
#1046
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 85
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
While I am accustomed to "treatment now, bill later", I know it's not that way everywhere in the world. I came prepared with insurance with medical emergency evacuation coverage, only to be unable to comply with my insurance company's request for documentation due to filling out forms for this reason being 'against NHS policy'.
#1048
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: May 2010
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 9,662
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
What would irk me however is, if I needed medical treatment and were refused it, because of lack of funds due to too few people paying into the system - which I fear is the cause of much of the problems in the UK's NHS/Social services.
#1049
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,294
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
My sister is a duel Brit/Canadian and her Canadian travel policy, fully covered her when she was visiting family in England and she became ill and was in hospital for a week. Her bill was in the thousands.
Last edited by formula; Dec 18th 2012 at 8:22 am.
#1050
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 85
Re: British citizen living abroad? Non-EEA spouse? This may affect you!
If you are going to visit a country (where you are not resident) then make sure you have health insurance and read the small print to make sure it is fit for purpose.
My sister is a duel Brit/Canadian and her Canadian travel policy, fully covered her when she was visiting family in England and she became ill and was in hospital for a week. Her bill was in the thousands.
My sister is a duel Brit/Canadian and her Canadian travel policy, fully covered her when she was visiting family in England and she became ill and was in hospital for a week. Her bill was in the thousands.