why didn't we have a blue ribbon committe?

why didn't we have a blue ribbon committe?

My thanks to Eloise and Rachel for some great technical hints...If one of my subject gets involved or complex I will write the blog in sections...

This blog question basically one I asked my Congressman The Hon Rep Dr. Michael Burgess, 26th District 8-18-09.

Background: A blue ribbon committe is a bipartisan committe made up of representatives of both parties who may have expertise or experience in a particular field to investigate a problem. Typically, this committee will call in experts, involved parties or interested parties to define the problem in their own terms, express their concerns, and to offer solutions. This committee then drafts up a finding in the form of a summary, which is then presented to a committee for review, debate and vote thereon if needed.

I asked Dr Burgess why there was no blue ribbon committee on the National Health Care Issue ( I do not use the "National Insurance Reform" title), given the self described "emergency" or "crisis" that affected ALL Americans. Why is the only input from non legislative types coming at town hall meetings or alternative means? ( I suspect the lobbysists have been very active, however...) The end result is a very willy nilly hodge podge of 4 House Bills, 2 Senate Bills and who knows what else, which all seem to be failing under the pressure of public outcry.

His response in essence was that there was a blue ribbon back in 1996(?) under Hillary Care that was shelved. He stated that even if requested and followed through on, that it could be shelved or tabled, or never debated. His response merely stated what has happened or what could happen. HE NEVER ANSWERED WHY THERE WAS NOT EVEN A REQUEST FOR ONE.

As an answer, this response dodges the question. IF both the Republics and Democrats represent that there is a crisis of monumental and far reaching consequences, why no request for a blue ribbon committee even? why is Congress wasting incredible amounts of time, capital, and pr merely to be surprised at the public ' response, industry response and individual responses?

the answer is quite simple: both sides do not view this issue as a public crisis but as a means for advancing not only party politics, but individual power needs and a shift in philosophical outlooks. It seems like another case of the politicians are smarter than the JQPublic , the industries involved and the economists evvaluating the consequences. Looks like the public be damned again.

word of advise to Congress, however. If you choose to ignore, ridicule or scoff at the public which is to foot the bill and bear the effects and brunt of these policies , new policies will be presented by new representatives.