NOW:53045:USA01489
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA01489
28°
H 28° L 28°
Light Snow | 13MPH

New Year, New Developments for Wisconsin

Health Care, Transparency, , Department of Public Instruction, Drunk Driving, felony, IID, OWI, Repeat Offenders, Sullivan, U-turn, Traffic, Indoor Air Quality

The New Year promises major progress when it comes to increasing competition in Wisconsin’s health care sector. 

Rep. Richards and I introduced the Health Care Transparency Bill (Senate Bill 418/Assembly Bill 614) earlier this month, and it has already had a public hearing before the Assembly Committee on Health and Healthcare Reform. The bill will encourage competition among health care providers by requiring them to provide health care consumers with the financial tools necessary to make informed decisions.

 

More employers are turning towards high deductible plans in response to skyrocketing premiums. These high deductible plans place more of the financial responsibility on the consumer, but the consumer’s ability to make informed decisions about care has been limited by a severe lack of available information and a complex pricing system. The Health Care Transparency Bill would require health care providers to disclose their prices.

 

Nowhere else are people asked to purchase a product without knowing ahead of time how much it's going to cost, and it should be the same with health care.

 

Under the Health Care Transparency Bill, consumers will have the right to receive a good faith estimate for the cost of a procedure, including out-of-pocket costs. In addition, health care providers will be required to make available a price list for their top 25 most frequently performed procedures.

 

Price disclosure will increase competition in the health care industry. Here’s why: As consumers begin to shop around for the best value, providers will compete on price and quality.

 

The bottom line is that people deserve to know the cost of their care. Period.

 

Laws Respond to Citizens’ Needs for New Year

 

Several of the bills I authored this session in response to your needs have been signed into law. Here’s a quick snapshot:

 

Drunk Driving Reform: Senate Bill 66 was signed into law on December 22. The law makes a fourth-offense OWI a felony if the driver has a previous OWI-related conviction within the previous five-year period.  It also criminalizes a first-offense OWI if a child is in the vehicle and expands statewide the successful Winnebago County Safe Streets Treatment Option Program.  Among its other provisions, the new law will require the installation of Ignition Interlock Devices (IID) for all repeat offenders as well as first-time offenders with a BAC of .15 or higher.  The new law takes effect on July 1, 2010.

 

U-Turns: As of January 1, 2010, drivers will be allowed to perform U-turns at controlled intersections unless there is a sign specifically prohibiting it. The new law will also allow vehicles to pass left-turning vehicles by using either the roadway or the paved shoulder. 

 

Indoor Environmental Quality: This law will help give schools a protocol to follow when dealing with indoor environmental quality issues.  It requires the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to convene a task force to develop a model management plan for indoor environmental quality in public and private schools.  Using the DPI plan as a model, school districts will be able to adopt a plan that best meets the needs of their community.

 

An informal survey and records requests from the Wisconsin Department of Commerce and the former Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services identified almost 100 school buildings with concerns about indoor environmental quality. Failure to prevent and respond to indoor air problems promptly can have grave consequences for our teachers and students, including health problems, reduced performance and absenteeism. 

Welcome to our new commenting system.
  • You can register through your Facebook account, sign on with your Facebook password and use the same photo and screen name. If you don’t want your account tied to Facebook, you can keep your registration through our site.
  • You can now personalize your Journal Sentinel account with a photo even if the account is not tied to Facebook.
  • You can now reply to comments. Replies will be threaded to make conversations easier to follow.
  • You can continue to sort comments according to oldest first, newest first, and most thumbs up.
  • Your comments are archived on your own page.
  • Please notify us if you see personal insults or other irresponsible comments. We reserve the right to eliminate any comments and block any commenter who is not civil and respectful of others.

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Limit of 2000 characters, 2000 characters remaining

Sort by
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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!
  6. If I remember right the inmates have to serve a majority of the sentence before they can be considered for possible early release. It is not like he goes to prison and 60 days later he is out. Did you know that Sen Sullivan during the course of is busy schedule found time to draft a new bill? The bill would make cheese the official snack of Wisconsin. Thats time well spent.
  7. 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).
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. "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.
Load more comments View all comments Back to top

Page Tools

  • Share

advertisement

Latest Posts