New Year, New Developments for Wisconsin

Way to be off and running on the new year. Perhaps you can start work on a State of Wisconsin Government Transparency Bill. If you are successful, we can track how the Democrats steal money from the transportation budget and put it into their pet projects. On second thought, that's a dumb idea on my part. Governement doesn't work under the same rules as the rest of society.

Why thank you Sully. Now we'll all await with baited breadth the next inspirational message from our second favorite hack politician: Mr. Marshmallow!

For some unknown reason, Senator Sullivan seems to be forgetting about a provision HE put into SB66 that will prohibit judges from even thinking about confiscating vehicles from repeat drunk drivers. Why? I have no idea. Why don't we ask HIM since HIS "Substitute Amendment #2" (SA #2) specifically called for a prohibition on confiscation?

According to the analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau, "This substitute amendment eliminates the option of ordering the person’s vehicle to be immobilized or seized and sold at auction.".
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB66-SSA2.pdf

Senator, if you're going to tell me that this sanction was rarely used by judges, then I wonder why you're not applying exactly the same logic to abolishing all speed limits? It's reasonable to assume that a cop will rarely pull somebody over for driving 56 mph in a 55 mph zone, right? Using that same presumed logic, then why not eliminate the 55 mph speed limit entirely for the same logical reasons you introduced SA #2? I'm sure there's something I don't understand about your reasons for introducing SA #2. Please educate me and the rest of us dumb voters here on this blog as to the REAL reason why you did what you did with respect to SA #2.

I'm sure Senator Sullivan has a good reason for not answering this simple question (asked 3 times now). Maybe he's thinking that it won't be asked during the campaign. We'll see. There's got to be a reason for his actions on SA #2, but so far, he doesn't appear to want to share his wisdom with the rest of us on this particular issue.

The Doyle/Sullivan team has bankrupted the state. Wew ill be over 10 billion short on the next budget ,including the deficit this year, the federal money and new spending.
We are in worse shape than California thanks to the Doyle/Sullvian/Cullen team.

I *think* I'm about to give Senator Sullivan some credit regarding SB418 (no, I haven't been drinking). The reason I say "I think" is that I'm not sure if it addresses a real problem or not. Has anybody ever had a problem getting actual cash costs for specific procedures or tests from any hospital, doc's office, clinic, or lab? I haven't. I HAVE had problems getting accurate costs regarding a specific vendor's DISCOUNTED RATE for specific tests/procedures charged to almost all insurance companies.

If a test/procedure is priced at $2000, everybody knows that this is the 'list price'. The lab/hospital/clinic will typically charge less than that based on the insurance you have. What I would like to see is that the provider provide SPECIFIC patient out-of-pocket cost for a specific procedure/test based on the DISCOUNTED RATE given to a specific health care provider. This type of data is essential when determining Flex Care budgets at the start of each year and obviously when determining where to seek treatment.

I'm not sure if SB418 does this, but it does state that the provider must publish "the average allowable payment from private, third−party payers". The thing that baffles me is that in order to calculate an AVERAGE of anything, then you must have ACTUAL costs from various providers for that thing that your'e calculating the average from. The bill says nothing about providing ACTUAL costs to us, only AVERAGE costs. Why? Beats me. If I take the literal interpretation of this bill offered by the Legislative Review Bureau, then it doesn't really solve any problem that I've had (or perhaps many others have had).

Any comment, Senator Sullivan? Is this a solution to a problem that really exists or not? All it has ever taken for me to determine cash costs is a phone call to the provider.

Tarzan ask if Santas Elf 'baited breadth' and dohnal 'Wew ill' product of Elmbrook schools or have been drinking sour coconut milk.

Hey dohnal...

Believe it or not I actually agree with you. However, what you've conveniently left out is that pre-Doyle the GOP controlled State government for more than a couple of decades and racked-up record deficits that became a permanent fixture in the State budget.

Both parties are to blame for this mess. So get real bucko. Anyone with half a brain isn't going to buy-into your Big Lie anymore.

By the way - where have the ever-vigilant Tosans for Responsible Government been all the while our home-grown conservatives are busily at work growing local government right here in good old Tosa town?

The silence is deafening.

Cronyism is alive and well after-all isn't it?

Going back as far as Lee S. Dreyfus, the State has run budget deficits MOST years. Tommy Thompson was the only governor who actually had a surplus for a while, but he gave that away with tax rebates and cuts. When he bolted for Washington DC, he left Scott McCallum with a $1+billion deficit too. Same $hite, different decade...

SOM, Payments to insurers are negotiated with each insurer. Providers don't have flat discounted rates. What they'll accept depends on the individual agreements. In any case, they won't extend negotiated rates to patients. Insurers can offer incentives that you can't, like large volumes of referrals.

I've had lots of trouble getting straight answers about the costs of medical services. I've heard the same complaint from others.

Yes, I know. I don't particularly care what Blue Cross' discounted rate is for a procedure if I'm a subscriber to a different health care company. Similarly, I don't really care about the AVERAGE cost to third-party insurance companies either. I want to know the specific costs that I will be expected to pay using my specific health care provider. If SB418 does this, great. I'm not, then it appears to be another example of new legislation without any 'teeth'.

Your question doesn't make sense, SOM. If you want to know what your insurance company reimburses for a procedure, ask your insurance company. They probably won't tell you, but it'll be fun imagining you badgering your insurance company the way you badger everyone else. They'll tell you your co-payment and your deductible, but I'd be surprised if they told you, in advance, what they reimburse for anything. You could also just look at an old EOB to see what they paid for similar procedures in the past.

Your provider has a fee for his or her services. He/she applies to become part of the provider network for various insurers. In exchange, he or she agrees to accept whatever the insurer is willing to pay. That amount varies from one insurer to another. Providers accept these lower payments in exchange for referrals.

Patients who pay their own way are expected to pay the full fee. They don't get breaks. Some providers have a sliding scale for low income patients. The bill will require providers to tell you what their fees are. For some people, that will be helpful.

I'm happy you're happy about SB418, TOS. Maybe it'll do some good.

I think we'll both be ecstatic once Senator Sullivan tells us why HE introduced SA #2 to SB66 that will now, for the very first time, absolutely prevent judges from even thinking about confiscating the vehicles used by repeat drunk drivers. So much for getting tough with drunk drivers, eh?

I think that SB418 is a step in the right direction. Unlike you, I tend to look at the overall good a piece of legislation will do. I don't fixate on the one thing that I might not like in an otherwise solid bill. And in the case of the drunk driving bill, I don't share your obsession with confiscating the cars of drunk drivers. Like the bill dealing with transparency in medical billing, it's a step in the right direction. It could be tougher, but it will do. Allowing judges to confiscate cars would do little, if anything, to keep drunk drivers off the roads.

But, WHY did Senator Sullivan feel the need to absolutely prevent judges from doing this? Whether or not judges do it is a totally different question. The fact is that Senator Sullivan has taken away that option from those judges who may consider it. Who do you think knows more about a particular DUI defendant, Senator Sullivan or someone like Judge William Brash? There may be a good reason for that particular clause in Sullivan's amendment, but don't you find it peculiar that this was part of the bill, while at the same time Sullivan's portraying himself to be tough on drunk drivers? Something doesn't make sense about that. Maybe Sullivan had to put that clause in, or Rep. Woods (remember him?) wouldn't support it. I think the confiscation prohibition introduced by Senator Sullivan is a dumb idea, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if somebody can present a valid reason for this 'weakening' of the DUI laws.
I'm sure this question will never be asked of Senator Sullivan during the upcoming campaign. But then again...

If I had to guess, I'd say that clauses like that end up punishing the innocent more often than they punish the guilty. Removing the clause means that a parent, a spouse, a partner, a friend, a sibling or a child won't lose a car because someone else decided to "borrow" it do go out drinking.

"Enablers", in other words, right? Now, the "enablers" will never lose their vehicles when their drunk husband/wife/gay lover takes THEIR to the bar to get totally ___t-faced thanks to Senator Sullivan.

The point is that Sullivan unilaterally decided this was a good idea NEVER to confiscate vehicles. He's preventing the judges from making that decision in individual cases. That's why I think the confiscation provision in SA#2 is a dumb idea.

Interesting theory.

SOM,
You keep reminding us how many times you've asked Sullivan about the confiscation provision, but you should know by now that he doesn't address answers to individuals on his blog. I think that's wise. We get into enough debate among ourselves. I'm just happy he has the guts to put something out there on a regular basis.

Tell me, have you ever written him and asked for an explanation without preemtively getting all over him about it? I write all my representatives and get answers from all of them, from Sullivan to Sensenbrenner.

Also, I think a better response to tosaoutsider, who offered a reasonable explanation to your concern, would have been something on the order of "hmmm, interesting thought," rather than your predictable rant on enablers.

If Sullivan had guts he would address the hard questions, he simply puts out these silly blogs and walks away.

He is an empty suit, I certainly will not vote for him.

izzie,

My first paragraph was mere speculation, albeit, semi-sarcastic speculation. My second paragraph is 100% fact and that's the thing that I hope everybody remembers. Senator Sullivan wants all of us to think he's getting tough against drunk drivers as the text of his opening statement on this blog strongly implies. I'm just trying to remind everybody that there is often more to the story than is being reported in the media or published by any particular politician. Be honest, would you have been aware of this quirky confiscation prohibition change if I hadn't brought it to your attention? Well, maybe you would have been, but I doubt 99% of the other constituents would. I'm doing my best to make everybody who reads this blog a little bit smarter.

Here's another thing that tends to water-down SB66. Governor Doyle's budget now allows non-violent felons to be granted early release from prison as a way to save money. So, even if SB66 were to make the 2nd DUI a felony, it's very likely that this convict would be granted very early release. So, the Senator can talk tough about making the 4th DUI a felony under some cases, but Doyle has minimized the sanctions of that felony conviction. It's similar to the way (D) Sullivan says he's for photo-ID, but he knows that he can rely on (D) Doyle to veto any such bill.

I've stated my opinion about his many LEGISLATIVE decisions on these blogs, and at the same time, I've given him EVERY opportunity to present his side. Maybe there's something I don't know and I'm rushing to judgement. I've almost begged him to edumacate me, but he hasn't. I prefer this semi-public venue so that he can't tell me one thing, you another thing, and Joe Blow something else if we all contact him individually. Yes, I HAVE contacted probably the same group of pols that you apparently contact regarding legislative issues. Sullivan's not very prompt (and that's saying it very diplomatically).

Carpie, Thompson had Democrats in control who spent too much and he didn't veto enough...just like G.W. Bush! Thompson stunk at HHS. I sure hope he doesn't try to run for governor again.
Bragging about this WEAK drunken driving bill is not very smart Mr. Sullivan. The only ones that like it are the people who drive drunk! The environmental bill is a bunch of bureaucratic hot air! With any luck we will end up with the Democrats losing control of WI at every level! All we need is for the apathetic to get off their butts and vote. The so-called "silent majority" needs to finally make some noise!

Nice proposal to penalize the little guy (mostly minorities) who scalp Brewer tickets Sullivan. This guy has never met a government regulation he doesn't like and should have an S - Socialist after his name on the ballot next fall.

Nice post Kingman. I had no idea that our Senator had anything to do with it since the TV newscast I was watching didn't mention his name. This even made news in BOSTON!

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1224601&srvc=business&position=recent

Are people really being 'harrassed'? I've certainly been approached by these guys in the past, but it has never been anything that would detract from the experience I've had at the ball games. Thanks for keeping all of us safe outside of Miller Park, Senator Sullivan. I had no idea you cared so much about my safety.

Good ole Sully his is busy making cheese the Offical Snack of Wisconsin while unemployment, high taxes, and other democratic results are killing our quality of living.

Way to go Sully, I look forward to not voting for you.

Hello, this is Sen. Sullivan, and I wanted to take an opportunity to respond to questions that have been posted about SB 66, which was signed into law last month. SB 66 was historic and comprehensive reform, which included increased sanctions for repeat offenders, plus expanded prevention and treatment options for our state. Vehicle confiscation was not a part of the original Senate bill; the provision originated in the Assembly, and was confirmed by information from the judiciary, which has found that confiscation imposed a major administrative burden and cost to effect and was easily circumvented by buying a new vehicle. In the end, SB 66 is comprehensive reform that addresses drunk driving on a broad spectrum including punishment, prevention and treatment. Its passage is expected to result in a significant reduction in the number of drunk driving incidents in our state.