View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Yawarakaijin
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 504 Location: Middle of Nagano
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: Possible strike against obtaining permanent resident status? |
|
|
I apologize for adding yet another thread to the pile regarding insurance coverage in Japan but I am really confused. Like alot of things in Japan there seems to be a law regarding a particular issue and then it seems routinely ignored.
So I am a few months into my second year this time around and my employer has arranged for us to be enrolled in a private healthcare scheme which seems quite good. I dont particularly care if I am on this system or enrolled in the national health care system as it seems they both have their pros and cons.
My question is this. Are there any ramifications in the long term for not being enrolled in the national healthcare system? Am I breaking any laws by not personally requesting to be enrolled or would my employer take the flak? My boss has told me that as long as we are on some kind of plan we are safe but I have heard otherwise. I hope to apply for permanent residency somewhere along the line and was wondering if it would be a strike against me for being here for a long period of time without being on the national plan.
I apologize if this has been brought up before but I didnt come across any particular information about the possible effects of not being enrolled on obtaining permenant residence status. Perhaps some of you have gone through this yourselves. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Chris21
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 Posts: 366 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't entirely sorted this out myself either. From what I understand (which may be incorrect), there is a new law requiring that you be enrolled in the national healthcare system after a certain period of time (I think it might be a year). I went to City Hall to ask them about health care coverage, and they said that I had to enroll (I haven't yet though). I've been privately covered for years now.
Also, I've heard that if you want to enroll, you have to pay for all of the previous months that you weren't enrolled (which seems to me like a way to guarantee people won't ever re-enroll!). So if you've been in Japan for a year, and find that you'd like to be covered, you'd have to pay around 200,000 yen (assuming monthly premiums were 15,000).
Again, I'm not entirely sure of the details as I heard all of this from two people at City Hall, and they can sometimes be wrong about these sorts of things. If both healthcare options are going to cost the same (or close to the same) for you, I would definitely join the national plan. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Yawarakaijin
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 504 Location: Middle of Nagano
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is what is causing me a little bit of stress nowadays. We all know that we are a dime a dozen here and if we rock the boat then we may not get our contract renewed. Our outfit is small and it seems the ownership has gone out of their way not to enroll us in the national program as that sticks them with 50% of the bill.
I am completely aware that this may be illegal on their part but for all other intensive purposes they treat us extremely well and I am quite happy with this job.
Now, on the other hand I do NOT want to get stuck with having to pay into the national system retroactively or have any kind of black mark against me in the future.
It is extremely confusing. I mean if it is a hard and fast rule would'nt the government have a list of companies and their foreign employees (through immigration)? Would it be such a feat of database management to check which employees are currently enrolled in the national health care system?
I mean really? If they are seriously interested in having everyone on the system why do they make it possible for employers to skirt the laws so easily? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
luckyloser700
Joined: 24 Mar 2006 Posts: 308 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Are there any ramifications in the long term for not being enrolled in the national healthcare system? Am I breaking any laws by not personally requesting to be enrolled or would my employer take the flak? My boss has told me that as long as we are on some kind of plan we are safe but I have heard otherwise |
Your company can't be held responsible for your failure to enroll in Kokumin Kenkou Hoken (KKH). If you're enrolled in Shakai Hoken by your company (you'd better ask if you're not sure) or some other government sponsered insurance/pension plan you don't need to enter KKH. But the law is the law: you must be enrolled in either Shakai Hoken or KKH after living in Japan for one year. As a foreign resident of Japan you have obligations; this is one of them. There's no law that says a company employing foreigners must hold their hands and advise them of all obligations to the country. It's your responsibility to find out just what is required of you while living in Japan.
If you decide or are at some point forced to enter KKH, there's a good chance you'll have to pay back-fees for all of the time you've been living in Japan after the first year. It's unlikely that the government will come knocking on your door (or contact you at all) and demand you enter KKH, but if you decide to stay here for a long time, you may eventually want or need to enter KKH. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Yawarakaijin
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 504 Location: Middle of Nagano
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok so lets say the law states that after a year you have to join the national healthcare plan of which your employer kicks in 50%
I have heard that company after company in Japan flaunts this law and never seems to get punished.
So say that someone who pushes to get put on the national plan is suddenly dumped by a company in order hire a fresh newbie who has no idea whats going on. Are we protected by Japanese law? I wonder.
Maybe this one is a good one for Wang to answer. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Speed

Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 152 Location: Shikoku Land
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yawarakaijin wrote: |
Ok so lets say the law states that after a year you have to join the national healthcare plan of which your employer kicks in 50%
I have heard that company after company in Japan flaunts this law and never seems to get punished.
|
Be careful. It sounds like you`re getting the two mixed up.
The national health care (Kokumin kenko hoken). You pay the whole amount. Your company doesn`t pay into it.
The social health care (Shakai kenko hoken). You pay half the premium and your company pays the other half every month. Your company is supposed to enroll you if work full time (40 hrs./week) or 75% of full time (30 hrs./week).
> People who don`t qualify to be enrolled in the Shakai kenko hoken, enroll in the kokumin kenko hoken. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Yawarakaijin
Joined: 20 Jan 2006 Posts: 504 Location: Middle of Nagano
|
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Speed. Thank you very much. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Glenski

Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 12844 Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
If you decide or are at some point forced to enter KKH, there's a good chance you'll have to pay back-fees for all of the time you've been living in Japan after the first year. |
I agree with everything lucky loser wrote except this. You are responsible only for 2 or 3 years (I think it's 2) of back payments. And, I've even heard from some people who have been in this situation that you don't have to make a lump sum payment to catch up. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
luckyloser700
Joined: 24 Mar 2006 Posts: 308 Location: Japan
|
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Glenski wrote: |
Quote: |
If you decide or are at some point forced to enter KKH, there's a good chance you'll have to pay back-fees for all of the time you've been living in Japan after the first year. |
I agree with everything lucky loser wrote except this. You are responsible only for 2 or 3 years (I think it's 2) of back payments. And, I've even heard from some people who have been in this situation that you don't have to make a lump sum payment to catch up. |
Sounds realistic, Glenski. I'm sure it would only be a couple of years. I haven't heard of anyone paying back more than that. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|