Les lignes de Bus
Un sondage ou vous avez été nombreux à répondre à permis de faire avancer les choses
Lancement d’un centre d’appel pour déclarer les infractions commises par les conducteurs des bus de transport public: faites le 4646
Beaucoup de Changement sur les lignes de Bus de Staréo. et pourtant....
Staréo rompt son contrat qui le lie à Rabat
La Société Staréo qui assurait la gestion du réseau d’autobus à Rabat, veut rompre son contrat avec les autorités de la ville. Mercredi, le maire de Rabat Fathallah Oualala a déclaré à l’agence Reuters que ce sont des « pertes financières qui ont poussé la société Staréo à quitter Rabat ». En effet Staréo qui a remporté ce contrat en 2009, avait souhaité augmenter les prix des tickets pour compenser ses grosses pertes financières. Une proposition que les autorités de la ville avaient rejetée.
La société de transport propose un délai de six mois avant l’arrêt de ses services. Les pouvoirs publics n’excluent pas de faire appel aux sociétés marocaines de transports pour la remplacer. Staréo, filiale de Veolia Environnement (France), est un consortium d’entreprises qui regroupe Veolia Transport et les groupes marocains Bouzid et Hakam.
La société perdait 36 MDH par mois et a cumulé une dette de 1,3 milliard de DH. Les difficultés ont été exacerbées par le sureffectif, les sabotages des employés et la concurrence de l'informel. Les dirigeants de la ville réfléchissent à la création d'une coopérative pour remplacer Stareo.
Stareo
Retour à la case départ pour les transports publics par autobus de Rabat. Stareo, société constituée par consortium formé par Veolia Transport et les sociétés Bouzid et Hakam, a déposé le bilan. Selon des sources bien informées, elle a concédé une perte de 36 MDH par mois en 2009, sans compter les arriérés de 6 millions et une dette évaluée à 1,3 milliard DH.
Lors d’une audience tenue le 11 mai, le tribunal de commerce de Rabat a pris connaissance des explications des responsables de la société. D’après la loi, le juge-commissaire doit statuer au plus tard dans les 15 jours de sa saisine. Mais, indiquent les mêmes sources, on est parti pour une liquidation qui met fin à une expérience qui devait pourtant durer au moins 15 ans selon les termes du contrat signé initialement avec les autorités locales.
A peine 16 mois et les concepteurs de ce projet, qui avaient nourri beaucoup d’espoirs quant à la possibilité de doter la ville d’un transport public par bus de haut niveau ou, du moins, de qualité correcte, jettent l’éponge. Stareo s’était engagée sur un programme d’investissement de près de 2 milliards de DH sur 15 ans. Elle avait prévu de doter la ville de 553 autobus neufs et de construire des infrastructures spécialement dédiées à la maintenance, l’entretien et au stationnement des véhicules.
Mieux encore, ses dirigeants étudiaient la possibilité d’aménager, avec l’appui de la mairie, 87 km de couloirs propres aux bus. La société avait réceptionné un parc de 116 véhicules des anciennes sociétés de la ville qui exerçaient l’activité. 66 en mauvais état et 50 dans un état moyen. C’était une des erreurs qui allaient déboucher sur l’échec de l’expérience.
Au vu de l’expérience de Veolia pour de tels projets et des années qu’ont duré les négociations, d’aucuns pensaient que le projet était viable. Comment alors expliquer qu’il ait tourné court ?
Un personnel trois fois en sureffectif
Selon des sources bien informées, les dirigeants du consortium avaient, en fait, mal négocié le contrat de gestion déléguée. Contrairement à Alsa à Marrakech, qui a obtenu que les terrains des dépôts leur soient octroyés par les autorités locales, les responsables de Stareo ont placé la barre très haut pour remporter le contrat. D’abord, le prix du ticket a été ramené à 3,50 DH contre les 4 DH alors appliqués à Rabat. Deuxième concession fatale : l’engagement de racheter les véhicules en bon état (une centaine) des anciens opérateurs et de louer le reste.
Après la conclusion du contrat, la société a été contrainte d’entamer l’activité cinq mois avant la date convenue sous la pression des autorités qui voulaient mettre fin aux vives manifestations de milliers d’employés non retenus par la nouvelle société. Et comme si cela ne suffisait pas, Stareo s’est retrouvé avec 3 500 employés sur les bras au lieu des 1 100 nécessaires à l’exploitation. Et tout cela avec le même budget réservé aux salaires. En somme, la société n’avait d’autre choix que de réduire les salaires.
Pour s’en sortir, la décision a été prise pour limiter les heures de travail de manière à contenir les salaires des employés. Plus concrètement, la consigne a été d’appliquer le Smig horaire. Première cible touchée par une telle disposition : les chauffeurs jugés en surnombre. En limitant la durée de travail quotidienne à une moyenne de 7 heures par chauffeur, les responsables RH voulaient d’abord s’assurer de payer le minimum légal et de garantir une rotation de tout ce personnel. Cette mesure s’est répercutée sur les rémunérations. «On gagnait 4 000 à 4 500 DH par mois grâce aux heures supplémentaires, mais avec le nouveau système, notre salaire ne dépasse pas les 2 400 DH», confie un chauffeur de bus. Conséquence naturelle : le climat se dégrade rapidement.
Preuve encore que la nouvelle culture avait du mal à s’enraciner : les costumes et tailleurs confectionnés pour le personnel masculin et féminin ont été boudés par le personnel. Du coup, ce sont 4 MDH qui étaient partis en fumée. A cela s’ajoutent des actions qui ont tout l’air de sabotage. «Pour écourter la durée de travail, certains chauffeurs n’hésitaient pas à abîmer le moteur ou la boîte de vitesses», témoigne un cadre.
A cela s’ajoutent d’autres facteurs exogènes. Par malchance, Stareo a commencé au moment où le transport clandestin battait son plein, sans que cela suscite des réactions de la part des autorités municipales
Culture moderne en déphasage avec l’état du secteur
Il n’en demeure pas moins que l’échec de l’expérience ne peut être attribué uniquement aux facteurs extérieurs. Les dirigeants de la société ont aussi leur part de responsabilité. A commencer par le manque de connaissance des réalités du marché local. Le fait de copier l’expérience française et européenne en général s’est avéré une erreur de taille. Il est en effet difficile de changer dans un temps très court le comportement d’un groupe mal formé et habitué à travailler dans des entreprises mal structurées. En atteste l’exemple de l’introduction de l’informatique que le personnel a mis du temps à assimiler.
Autre signe de méconnaissance du marché : l’évaluation du chiffre d’affaires de l’activité. Les dirigeants de Stareo avaient tablé au moins sur la réalisation du même chiffre d’affaires quotidien réalisé par toutes les sociétés qui opéraient dans le secteur avant son arrivée, soit 2,4 MDH par jour. Selon des sources bien informées, elle parvient à peine à collecter un million de DH. De plus, les anciens opérateurs ne déclaraient qu’une partie du personnel, et se soustrayaient au paiement des impôts.
«Dans ces conditions, il était clair qu’on ne pouvait pas aller très loin», signale non sans amertume un ancien directeur.
Sauvetage : Qui fera le pompier ?
Pour remplacer Stareo, les dirigeants de la Ville examinent actuellement les moyens de créer une entité qui devrait avoir le statut de coopérative. Tous les arrondissements de la ville y seraient représentés pour constituer 51% de son capital. Pour compléter le tour de table, l’idée retenue est de faire appel à des institutions publiques et semi-publiques dans le cadre d’une société mixte. La Caisse de dépôt et de gestion (CDG), généralement sollicitée dans pareils cas, aurait déjà décliné une offre dans ce sens. Autant dire que la mission ne sera pas de tout repos.
En attendant, une chose est sûre : le dépôt de bilan de Stareo poussera les communes de Rabat à mettre la main à la poche. Déjà, elles sont intervenues pour payer une commande de 50 nouveaux bus que Stareo avait passée. Et le pire est à venir
En cliquant sur le numéro de la ligne vous découvrirez les principaux arrèt ainsi que le départ et l'arrivée de la ligne.
1 | OCEAN |
BAB EL HAD |
PONT DE SALE |
MAIRIE DE SALE |
MHEDRA |
BAB EL KARIA |
SALE EL KARIA |
FACULTE DE SALE |
SALE EL JADIDA |
||
2 | OCEAN |
BAB EL HAD |
BAB MELLAH |
GARE ROUTIER SALE |
MHEDRA |
BAB EL KARIA |
SALE EL KARIA |
3 | OCEAN | BAB EL HAD | MINISTERE | SOUSSI | ASSWAK SALAM | MASSIRA 1 | MILANO | KROUCH | MARCHE DE GROS | ||
4 | OCEAN | BAB EL HAD | AGDAL | AVISSENE | UNIVERSITE | HAY RIAD | MASSIRA 1 | AV.MOHAMMED V | HASSAN I |
FATH EL KHEIR |
MARCHE DE GROS |
7 | OCEAN | BAB EL HAD | AV. HASSAN II | COMPLEXE SPORTIF MLY ABDALLAH | R.P. CHEICK DAOUI | MASSIRA 1 | AV.MOHAMMED V | av. hassan ii | ASSWAK SALAM | AIN ATIQ | |
8 | OCEAN | BAB EL HAD | AV DES NATIONS UNIES | AGDAL | R.P. AVICENNE | HAY RIAD | ASSWAK SALLAM | MILANO | CHIGA | MAGHRIB EL ARABI | MARCHE DE GROS |
32 | OCEAN | BAB EL HAD | GARE AGDAL | AGDAL BEN SINA | HOPITAL MILITAIRE AVICENNE | HAY RIAD | GUICH OUDAYAS | MASSIRA 1 | MILANO | CHIGA | MAGHRIB EL ARABI |
40 | OCEAN | BAB EL HAD | AV. HASSAN II | YACOUB EL MANSOUR | EL KOUASS | EL MANAL | AV.HASSAN II | MASSIRA 1 | KROUCH | MER EL KHEIR | |
45 | BAB EL HAD | AV.HASSAN II | BAB TAMESNA | GARE ROUTIERE KAMRA | AL MANAL | COMPLEXE SPORTIF MllY ABDALLAH | JARDIN ZOOLOGIQUE | CENTRE DE TEMARA | MASSIRA 1 |
PLAGE CASINO |
PLAGE SABLE D'OR |
33 | BAB EL HAD | AV. HASSAN II | MARCHE DE GROS | ROUTE COTIERE | EL MENZEH | PLAGE HAROURA | GUY VILLE | PLAGE CASINO |
PLAGE CONTRE BANDIER |
PLAGE SABLE D'OR |
Les autres lignes sont en cours de montage merci pour votre patience
Commentaires (139)

- 1. | 18/02/2021

- 2. | 13/02/2019

- 3. | 13/03/2018
Текущий ремонт дорог В Краснодаре
Зонирование, повышение комфорта, экологии. Проведение комплексного озеленения, установка вспомогательных архитектурных сооружений и других элементов по индивидуальному проекту.
Восстановление первоначальных характеристик эксплуатации дорожного полотна, оперативное устранение небольших дефектов и повреждений покрытия, улучшение ровности и сцепных качеств дороги. Разметка дорог.
Асфальтирование парковок/двора
Асфальтирование ангаров/складов
Высокая конкурентоспособность, выполнение работ "день в день", а так же репутация надежного и качественного подрядчика.
Опыт работы с 2008 года, Оптимальная цена, ВЫЕЗД СПЕЦИАЛИСТА В ДЕНЬ ОБРАЩЕНИЯ Бесплатно!
Асфальтирование, Установка бордюров, Ямочный ремонт, Разбивка любой сложности осей зданий, сооружений, линейных объектов
____________________________________
выполнение работ по благоустройству краснодар
управление коммунального хозяйства и благоустройства город краснодар
асфальтирование в краснодаре
----------------------
http://благоустройство-краснодар.рф/

- 4. | 22/02/2018
Асфальтирование в ЮФО
Ремонт и укладка асфальта на тротуары, площадки и дороги любой категории. Демонтаж старого асфальта, использование новейших техник и материалов. Оперативность и гарантия долговечности.
Восстановление первоначальных характеристик эксплуатации дорожного полотна, оперативное устранение небольших дефектов и повреждений покрытия, улучшение ровности и сцепных качеств дороги. Разметка дорог.
Асфальтирование для легкового транспорта
Асфальтирование ангаров/складов
Высокая конкурентоспособность, выполнение работ "день в день", а так же репутация надежного и качественного подрядчика.
Ответственные специалисты, Оптимальная цена, Поставка всех необходимых материалов без задержек.
Бетонирование, Благоустройство, Топографическая съемка, Разбивка любой сложности осей зданий, сооружений, линейных объектов
____________________________________
правила благоустройства города краснодар
благоустройство цена в краснодаре
асфальтирование в краснодаре цена
----------------------
http://благоустройство-краснодар.рф/

- 5. | 14/02/2018

- 6. | 14/02/2018
weight loss drugs prescription
new diet pill
weight loss medications prescription
best weight loss pills for women

- 7. | 07/02/2018
новости благоустройства краснодара
краснодар место по благоустройству
комплексное благоустройство краснодар
стоимость асфальтирования краснодар
----------------------
http://благоустройство-краснодар.рф/

- 8. | 02/02/2018
If you want to live in France and spend your life there you should select a proper house. French property is not cheap and you need to make a major investment. You must also know about the properties for sale in France at various locations. The houses for sale in France come in different prices depending on the location

- 9. | 02/02/2018
weight loss supplements for women
best weight loss pills
weight loss drugs
best weight loss products

- 10. | 31/01/2018
vegas casino games
casino online
cassino
new usa online casinos 2017

- 11. | 31/01/2018
cassino
casino slots
casino slots
slot game

- 12. | 30/01/2018
best diet pills to lose weight
best weight loss products
weight loss injections
appetite suppressants that work

- 13. | 17/01/2018
casinos online
casino online usa
casino games

- 14. | 26/12/2017

- 15. | 04/12/2017
https://sites.google.com/site/weightlossluxury/home
Food for Google:
weight loss diet for o positive blood group
quickest diet pill to lose weight
how to lose weight fast easy way
blue cross blue shield and weight loss surgery
dumbbell circuits for weight loss
wheelchair bound weight loss
the best supplements to take for weight loss
weight loss low carbohydrate diet
did you lose weight with zumba dvd

- 16. | 29/11/2017
If you want to live in France and spend your life there you should select a proper house. French property is not cheap and you need to make a major investment. You must also know about the properties for sale in France at various locations. The houses for sale in France come in different prices depending on the location

- 17. | 26/11/2017
direct online lenders
online loan companies
bad credit unsecured loans
short loans

- 18. | 09/11/2017
To begin, let's turn to the American civil war. In that war, dated tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the era combined to cause ghastly results. Not generally known is that most of the deaths on both sides of that war were not the result of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted. To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail's pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. Secondly, many wounds were subjected to wound care, related surgeries and/or amputations of the affected limbs and this often resulted in the onset of massive infection. So you might survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical care providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed. In total something like 600,000 deaths occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U.S. population at the time!
Let's skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to more modern times. After the civil war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques and in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a "wait and see" approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and increasingly attempt risky surgeries (now largely performed in sterile surgical environments) but medicines were not yet available to handle serious illnesses. The majority of deaths remained the result of untreatable conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet fever and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.
This very basic review of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently (around the 1950's) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Here is a critical point we need to understand; "nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor if at all were relegated to emergencies so in such a scenario costs are curtailed. The simple fact is that there was little for doctors to offer and therefore virtually nothing to drive health care spending. A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that were provided were paid for out-of-pocket, meaning by way of an individuals personal resources. There was no such thing as health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by an employer. Except for the very destitute who were lucky to find their way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the responsibility of the individual.
What does health care insurance have to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs has been, and remains to this day, absolutely enormous. When health insurance for individuals and families emerged as a means for corporations to escape wage freezes and to attract and retain employees after World War II, almost overnight a great pool of money became available to pay for health care. Money, as a result of the availability of billions of dollars from health insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to increase medical research efforts. More Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored health insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare and Medicaid (1965). In addition funding became available for expanded veterans health care benefits. Finding a cure for almost anything has consequently become very lucrative. This is also the primary reason for the vast array of treatments we have available today.
I do not wish to convey that medical innovations are a bad thing. Think of the tens of millions of lives that have been saved, extended, enhanced and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable. Doctor's offer and most of us demand and get access to the latest available health care technology in the form of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tools and surgical procedures. So the result is that there is more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most of us were insured and the costs were largely covered by a third-party (government, employers). Add an insatiable and unrealistic public demand for access and treatment and we have the "perfect storm" for higher and higher health care costs. And by and large the storm is only intensifying.
At this point, let's turn to the key questions that will lead us into a review and hopefully a better understanding of the health care reform proposals in the news today. Is the current trajectory of U.S. health care spending sustainable? Can America maintain its world competitiveness when 16%, heading for 20% of our gross national product is being spent on health care? What are the other industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even close to these numbers? When we add politics and an election year to the debate, information to help us answer these questions become critical. We need to spend some effort in understanding health care and sorting out how we think about it. Properly armed we can more intelligently determine whether certain health care proposals might solve or worsen some of these problems. What can be done about the challenges? How can we as individuals contribute to the solutions?
The Obama health care plan is complex for sure - I have never seen a health care plan that isn't. But through a variety of programs his plan attempts to deal with a) increasing the number of American that are covered by adequate insurance (almost 50 million are not), and b) managing costs in such a manner that quality and our access to health care is not adversely affected. Republicans seek to achieve these same basic and broad goals, but their approach is proposed as being more market driven than government driven. Let's look at what the Obama plan does to accomplish the two objectives above. Remember, by the way, that his plan was passed by congress, and begins to seriously kick-in starting in 2014. So this is the direction we are currently taking as we attempt to reform health care.
Through insurance exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid,the Obama plan dramatically expands the number of Americans that will be covered by health insurance.
To cover the cost of this expansion the plan requires everyone to have health insurance with a penalty to be paid if we don't comply. It will purportedly send money to the states to cover those individuals added to state-based Medicaid programs.
To cover the added costs there were a number of new taxes introduced, one being a 2.5% tax on new medical technologies and another increases taxes on interest and dividend income for wealthier Americans.
The Obama plan also uses concepts such as evidence-based medicine, accountable care organizations, comparative effectiveness research and reduced reimbursement to health care providers (doctors and hospitals) to control costs.
The insurance mandate covered by points 1 and 2 above is a worthy goal and most industrialized countries outside of the U.S. provide "free" (paid for by rather high individual and corporate taxes) health care to most if not all of their citizens. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of restrictions for which many Americans would be culturally unprepared. Here is the primary controversial aspect of the Obama plan, the insurance mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear arguments as to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate as a result of a petition by 26 states attorney's general that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution by passing this element of the plan. The problem is that if the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it is generally believed that the Obama plan as we know it is doomed. This is because its major goal of providing health insurance to all would be severely limited if not terminated altogether by such a decision.
As you would guess, the taxes covered by point 3 above are rather unpopular with those entities and individuals that have to pay them. Medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all had to "give up" something that would either create new revenue or would reduce costs within their spheres of control. As an example, Stryker Corporation, a large medical device company, recently announced at least a 1,000 employee reduction in part to cover these new fees. This is being experienced by other medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies as well. The reduction in good paying jobs in these sectors and in the hospital sector may rise as former cost structures will have to be dealt with in order to accommodate the reduced rate of reimbursement to hospitals. Over the next ten years some estimates put the cost reductions to hospitals and physicians at half a trillion dollars and this will flow directly to and affect the companies that supply hospitals and doctors with the latest medical technologies. None of this is to say that efficiencies will not be realized by these changes or that other jobs will in turn be created but this will represent painful change for a while. It helps us to understand that health care reform does have an effect both positive and negative.
Finally, the Obama plan seeks to change the way medical decisions are made. While clinical and basic research underpins almost everything done in medicine today, doctors are creatures of habit like the rest of us and their training and day-to-day experiences dictate to a great extent how they go about diagnosing and treating our conditions. Enter the concept of evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness research. Both of these seek to develop and utilize data bases from electronic health records and other sources to give better and more timely information and feedback to physicians as to the outcomes and costs of the treatments they are providing. There is great waste in health care today, estimated at perhaps a third of an over 2 trillion dollar health care spend annually. Imagine the savings that are possible from a reduction in unnecessary test and procedures that do not compare favorably with health care interventions that are better documented as effective. Now the Republicans and others don't generally like these ideas as they tend to characterize them as "big government control" of your and my health care. But to be fair, regardless of their political persuasions, most people who understand health care at all, know that better data for the purposes described above will be crucial to getting health care efficiencies, patient safety and costs headed in the right direction.
A brief review of how Republicans and more conservative individuals think about health care reform. I believe they would agree that costs must come under control and that more, not fewer Americans should have access to health care regardless of their ability to pay. But the main difference is that these folks see market forces and competition as the way to creating the cost reductions and efficiencies we need. There are a number of ideas with regard to driving more competition among health insurance companies and health care providers (doctors and hospitals) so that the consumer would begin to drive cost down by the choices we make. This works in many sectors of our economy but this formula has shown that improvements are illusive when applied to health care. Primarily the problem is that health care choices are difficult even for those who understand it and are connected. The general population, however, is not so informed and besides we have all been brought up to "go to the doctor" when we feel it is necessary and we also have a cultural heritage that has engendered within most of us the feeling that health care is something that is just there and there really isn't any reason not to access it for whatever the reason and worse we all feel that there is nothing we can do to affect its costs to insure its availability to those with serious problems.
OK, this article was not intended to be an exhaustive study as I needed to keep it short in an attempt to hold my audience's attention and to leave some room for discussing what we can do contribute mightily to solving some of the problems. First we must understand that the dollars available for health care are not limitless. Any changes that are put in place to provide better insurance coverage and access to care will cost more. And somehow we have to find the revenues to pay for these changes. At the same time we have to pay less for medical treatments and procedures and do something to restrict the availability of unproven or poorly documented treatments as we are the highest cost health care system in the world and don't necessarily have the best results in terms of longevity or avoiding chronic diseases much earlier than necessary.
I believe that we need a revolutionary change in the way we think about health care, its availability, its costs and who pays for it. And if you think I am about to say we should arbitrarily and drastically reduce spending on health care you would be wrong. Here it is fellow citizens - health care spending needs to be preserved and protected for those who need it. And to free up these dollars those of us who don't need it or can delay it or avoid it need to act. First, we need to convince our politicians that this country needs sustained public education with regard to the value of preventive health strategies. This should be a top priority and it has worked to reduce the number of U.S. smokers for example. If prevention were to take hold, it is reasonable to assume that those needing health care for the myriad of life style engendered chronic diseases would decrease dramatically. Millions of Americans are experiencing these diseases far earlier than in decades past and much of this is due to poor life style choices. This change alone would free up plenty of money to handle the health care costs of those in dire need of treatment, whether due to an acute emergency or chronic condition.
Let's go deeper on the first issue. Most of us refuse do something about implementing basic wellness strategies into our daily lives. We don't exercise but we offer a lot of excuses. We don't eat right but we offer a lot of excuses. We smoke and/or we drink alcohol to excess and we offer a lot of excuses as to why we can't do anything about managing these known to be destructive personal health habits. We don't take advantage of preventive health check-ups that look at blood pressure, cholesterol readings and body weight but we offer a lot of excuses. In short we neglect these things and the result is that we succumb much earlier than necessary to chronic diseases like heart problems, diabetes and high blood pressure. We wind up accessing doctors for these and more routine matters because "health care is there" and somehow we think we have no responsibility for reducing our demand on it.
It is difficult for us to listen to these truths but easy to blame the sick. Maybe they should take better care of themselves! Well, that might be true or maybe they have a genetic condition and they have become among the unfortunate through absolutely no fault of their own. But the point is that you and I can implement personalized preventive disease measures as a way of dramatically improving health care access for others while reducing its costs. It is far better to be productive by doing something we can control then shifting the blame.
There are a huge number of free web sites available that can steer us to a more healthful life style. A soon as you can, "Google" "preventive health care strategies", look up your local hospital's web site and you will find more than enough help to get you started. Finally, there is a lot to think about here and I have tried to outline the challenges but also the very powerful effect we could have on preserving the best of America's health care system now and into the future. I am anxious to hear from you and until then - take charge and increase your chances for good health while making sure that health care is there when we need it.

- 19. | 02/11/2017
Writing manually takes a lot of time, but there is tool for this boring task, search for: Boorfe's tips unlimited content

- 20. | 29/10/2017

- 21. | 19/10/2017

- 22. | 17/10/2017

- 23. | 14/10/2017
Access to state of the art health care services is something we can all agree would be a good thing for this country. Experiencing a serious illness is one of life's major challenges and to face it without the means to pay for it is positively frightening. But as we shall see, once we know the facts, we will find that achieving this goal will not be easy without our individual contribution.
These are the themes I will touch on to try to make some sense out of what is happening to American health care and the steps we can personally take to make things better.
<i><u>A recent history of American health care - what has driven the costs so high?</u></i>
<b>Key elements of the Obama health care plan</b>
<u><strong>The Republican view of health care - free market competition</strong></u>
<b>Universal access to state of the art health care - a worthy goal but not easy to achieve</b>
<b>what can we do?</b>
First, let's get a little historical perspective on American health care. This is not intended to be an exhausted look into that history but it will give us an appreciation of how the health care system and our expectations for it developed. What drove costs higher and higher?
To begin, let's turn to the American civil war. In that war, dated tactics and the carnage inflicted by modern weapons of the era combined to cause ghastly results. Not generally known is that most of the deaths on both sides of that war were not the result of actual combat but to what happened after a battlefield wound was inflicted. To begin with, evacuation of the wounded moved at a snail's pace and this caused severe delays in treating the wounded. Secondly, many wounds were subjected to wound care, related surgeries and/or amputations of the affected limbs and this often resulted in the onset of massive infection. So you might survive a battle wound only to die at the hands of medical care providers who although well-intentioned, their interventions were often quite lethal. High death tolls can also be ascribed to everyday sicknesses and diseases in a time when no antibiotics existed. In total something like 600,000 deaths occurred from all causes, over 2% of the U.S. population at the time!
Let's skip to the first half of the 20th century for some additional perspective and to bring us up to more modern times. After the civil war there were steady improvements in American medicine in both the understanding and treatment of certain diseases, new surgical techniques and in physician education and training. But for the most part the best that doctors could offer their patients was a "wait and see" approach. Medicine could handle bone fractures and increasingly attempt risky surgeries (now largely performed in sterile surgical environments) but medicines were not yet available to handle serious illnesses. The majority of deaths remained the result of untreatable conditions such as tuberculosis, pneumonia, scarlet fever and measles and/or related complications. Doctors were increasingly aware of heart and vascular conditions, and cancer but they had almost nothing with which to treat these conditions.
This very basic review of American medical history helps us to understand that until quite recently (around the 1950's) we had virtually no technologies with which to treat serious or even minor ailments. Here is a critical point we need to understand; "nothing to treat you with means that visits to the doctor if at all were relegated to emergencies so in such a scenario costs are curtailed. The simple fact is that there was little for doctors to offer and therefore virtually nothing to drive health care spending. A second factor holding down costs was that medical treatments that were provided were paid for out-of-pocket, meaning by way of an individuals personal resources. There was no such thing as health insurance and certainly not health insurance paid by an employer. Except for the very destitute who were lucky to find their way into a charity hospital, health care costs were the responsibility of the individual.
What does health care insurance have to do with health care costs? Its impact on health care costs has been, and remains to this day, absolutely enormous. When health insurance for individuals and families emerged as a means for corporations to escape wage freezes and to attract and retain employees after World War II, almost overnight a great pool of money became available to pay for health care. Money, as a result of the availability of billions of dollars from health insurance pools, encouraged an innovative America to increase medical research efforts. More Americans became insured not only through private, employer sponsored health insurance but through increased government funding that created Medicare and Medicaid (1965). In addition funding became available for expanded veterans health care benefits. Finding a cure for almost anything has consequently become very lucrative. This is also the primary reason for the vast array of treatments we have available today.
I do not wish to convey that medical innovations are a bad thing. Think of the tens of millions of lives that have been saved, extended, enhanced and made more productive as a result. But with a funding source grown to its current magnitude (hundreds of billions of dollars annually) upward pressure on health care costs are inevitable. Doctor's offer and most of us demand and get access to the latest available health care technology in the form of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostic tools and surgical procedures. So the result is that there is more health care to spend our money on and until very recently most of us were insured and the costs were largely covered by a third-party (government, employers). Add an insatiable and unrealistic public demand for access and treatment and we have the "perfect storm" for higher and higher health care costs. And by and large the storm is only intensifying.
At this point, let's turn to the key questions that will lead us into a review and hopefully a better understanding of the health care reform proposals in the news today. Is the current trajectory of U.S. health care spending sustainable? Can America maintain its world competitiveness when 16%, heading for 20% of our gross national product is being spent on health care? What are the other industrialized countries spending on health care and is it even close to these numbers? When we add politics and an election year to the debate, information to help us answer these questions become critical. We need to spend some effort in understanding health care and sorting out how we think about it. Properly armed we can more intelligently determine whether certain health care proposals might solve or worsen some of these problems. What can be done about the challenges? How can we as individuals contribute to the solutions?
The Obama health care plan is complex for sure - I have never seen a health care plan that isn't. But through a variety of programs his plan attempts to deal with a) increasing the number of American that are covered by adequate insurance (almost 50 million are not), and b) managing costs in such a manner that quality and our access to health care is not adversely affected. Republicans seek to achieve these same basic and broad goals, but their approach is proposed as being more market driven than government driven. Let's look at what the Obama plan does to accomplish the two objectives above. Remember, by the way, that his plan was passed by congress, and begins to seriously kick-in starting in 2014. So this is the direction we are currently taking as we attempt to reform health care.
Through insurance exchanges and an expansion of Medicaid,the Obama plan dramatically expands the number of Americans that will be covered by health insurance.
To cover the cost of this expansion the plan requires everyone to have health insurance with a penalty to be paid if we don't comply. It will purportedly send money to the states to cover those individuals added to state-based Medicaid programs.
To cover the added costs there were a number of new taxes introduced, one being a 2.5% tax on new medical technologies and another increases taxes on interest and dividend income for wealthier Americans.
The Obama plan also uses concepts such as evidence-based medicine, accountable care organizations, comparative effectiveness research and reduced reimbursement to health care providers (doctors and hospitals) to control costs.
The insurance mandate covered by points 1 and 2 above is a worthy goal and most industrialized countries outside of the U.S. provide "free" (paid for by rather high individual and corporate taxes) health care to most if not all of their citizens. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of restrictions for which many Americans would be culturally unprepared. Here is the primary controversial aspect of the Obama plan, the insurance mandate. The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to hear arguments as to the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate as a result of a petition by 26 states attorney's general that congress exceeded its authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. constitution by passing this element of the plan. The problem is that if the Supreme Court should rule against the mandate, it is generally believed that the Obama plan as we know it is doomed. This is because its major goal of providing health insurance to all would be severely limited if not terminated altogether by such a decision.
As you would guess, the taxes covered by point 3 above are rather unpopular with those entities and individuals that have to pay them. Medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors and insurance companies all had to "give up" something that would either create new revenue or would reduce costs within their spheres of control. As an example, Stryker Corporation, a large medical device company, recently announced at least a 1,000 employee reduction in part to cover these new fees. This is being experienced by other medical device companies and pharmaceutical companies as well. The reduction in good paying jobs in these sectors and in the hospital sector may rise as former cost structures will have to be dealt with in order to accommodate the reduced rate of reimbursement to hospitals. Over the next ten years some estimates put the cost reductions to hospitals and physicians at half a trillion dollars and this will flow directly to and affect the companies that supply hospitals and doctors with the latest medical technologies. None of this is to say that efficiencies will not be realized by these changes or that other jobs will in turn be created but this will represent painful change for a while. It helps us to understand that health care reform does have an effect both positive and negative.
Finally, the Obama plan seeks to change the way medical decisions are made. While clinical and basic research underpins almost everything done in medicine today, doctors are creatures of habit like the rest of us and their training and day-to-day experiences dictate to a great extent how they go about diagnosing and treating our conditions. Enter the concept of evidence-based medicine and comparative effectiveness research. Both of these seek to develop and utilize data bases from electronic health records and other sources to give better and more timely information and feedback to physicians as to the outcomes and costs of the treatments they are providing. There is great waste in health care today, estimated at perhaps a third of an over 2 trillion dollar health care spend annually. Imagine the savings that are possible from a reduction in unnecessary test and procedures that do not compare favorably with health care interventions that are better documented as effective. Now the Republicans and others don't generally like these ideas as they tend to characterize them as "big government control" of your and my health care. But to be fair, regardless of their political persuasions, most people who understand health care at all, know that better data for the purposes described above will be crucial to getting health care efficiencies, patient safety and costs headed in the right direction.
A brief review of how Republicans and more conservative individuals think about health care reform. I believe they would agree that costs must come under control and that more, not fewer Americans should have access to health care regardless of their ability to pay. But the main difference is that these folks see market forces and competition as the way to creating the cost reductions and efficiencies we need. There are a number of ideas with regard to driving more competition among health insurance companies and health care providers (doctors and hospitals) so that the consumer would begin to drive cost down by the choices we make. This works in many sectors of our economy but this formula has shown that improvements are illusive when applied to health care. Primarily the problem is that health care choices are difficult even for those who understand it and are connected. The general population, however, is not so informed and besides we have all been brought up to "go to the doctor" when we feel it is necessary and we also have a cultural heritage that has engendered within most of us the feeling that health care is something that is just there and there really isn't any reason not to access it for whatever the reason and worse we all feel that there is nothing we can do to affect its costs to insure its availability to those with serious problems.
OK, this article was not intended to be an exhaustive study as I needed to keep it short in an attempt to hold my audience's attention and to leave some room for discussing what we can do contribute mightily to solving some of the problems. First we must understand that the dollars available for health care are not limitless. Any changes that are put in place to provide better insurance coverage and access to care will cost more. And somehow we have to find the revenues to pay for these changes. At the same time we have to pay less for medical treatments and procedures and do something to restrict the availability of unproven or poorly documented treatments as we are the highest cost health care system in the world and don't necessarily have the best results in terms of longevity or avoiding chronic diseases much earlier than necessary.
I believe that we need a revolutionary change in the way we think about health care, its availability, its costs and who pays for it. And if you think I am about to say we should arbitrarily and drastically reduce spending on health care you would be wrong. Here it is fellow citizens - health care spending needs to be preserved and protected for those who need it. And to free up these dollars those of us who don't need it or can delay it or avoid it need to act. First, we need to convince our politicians that this country needs sustained public education with regard to the value of preventive health strategies. This should be a top priority and it has worked to reduce the number of U.S. smokers for example. If prevention were to take hold, it is reasonable to assume that those needing health care for the myriad of life style engendered chronic diseases would decrease dramatically. Millions of Americans are experiencing these diseases far earlier than in decades past and much of this is due to poor life style choices. This change alone would free up plenty of money to handle the health care costs of those in dire need of treatment, whether due to an acute emergency or chronic condition.
Let's go deeper on the first issue. Most of us refuse do something about implementing basic wellness strategies into our daily lives. We don't exercise but we offer a lot of excuses. We don't eat right but we offer a lot of excuses. We smoke and/or we drink alcohol to excess and we offer a lot of excuses as to why we can't do anything about managing these known to be destructive personal health habits. We don't take advantage of preventive health check-ups that look at blood pressure, cholesterol readings and body weight but we offer a lot of excuses. In short we neglect these things and the result is that we succumb much earlier than necessary to chronic diseases like heart problems, diabetes and high blood pressure. We wind up accessing doctors for these and more routine matters because "health care is there" and somehow we think we have no responsibility for reducing our demand on it.
It is difficult for us to listen to these truths but easy to blame the sick. Maybe they should take better care of themselves! Well, that might be true or maybe they have a genetic condition and they have become among the unfortunate through absolutely no fault of their own. But the point is that you and I can implement personalized preventive disease measures as a way of dramatically improving health care access for others while reducing its costs. It is far better to be productive by doing something we can control then shifting the blame.
There are a huge number of free web sites available that can steer us to a more healthful life style. A soon as you can, "Google" "preventive health care strategies", look up your local hospital's web site and you will find more than enough help to get you started. Finally, there is a lot to think about here and I have tried to outline the challenges but also the very powerful effect we could have on preserving the best of America's health care system now and into the future. I am anxious to hear from you and until then - take charge and increase your chances for good health while making sure that health care is there when we need it.

- 24. | 11/10/2017

- 25. | 01/10/2017
Writing manually takes a lot of time, but there is
tool for this time consuming task, search for; Wrastain's
tools for content