Is Ralph Klein Throwing a Book at a Page Some Sort of Sign?

Recently I have been working on an essay dealing with the ongoing healthcare “reforms” in my home province of Alberta. Upon initially hearing about Ralph Klein’s little spat in the Legislature (March 1, 2006) I immediately connected it to what I had been previously writing. Back in January I had written that some of Ralph Klein’s motivations, and he is by no means alone, was purely ideological. Not ideological in a negative way, not in an absolute way, but in such a way that helps me understand the reality of what is going on back home. My conclusions have seemingly been confirmed in the pages of the news.

I should be clear that I don’t feel it’s necessary to dwell on the actual incident. I like the guy and I think he simply made a mistake. It would be too easy to connect this incident to other forms of ideological extremism seen in our modern world. He has sincerely apologized, and I tend to believe him, because I’m not perfect either, and I feel we can accept it. The reaction of some of the opposition members was a little strange, calling him “out of control”; to this I just rolled my eyes. I, for one, am not going to hold this incident against him. (Though I will probably think twice about delivering him bad news in person. I jest! I jest!)

I was not initially going to blog about the incident but then I reflected back on my whole employment history. I’m a pretty average Albertan and I have worked with a wide spectrum of people. Most I have liked, some were annoying, and yes, some were even very frustrating; but I never threw anything at them. Perhaps my life experiences are too narrow, perhaps I am giving too much weight to antidotal evidence, but I thought there must be something here worth learning.

I am sure between him and I, we can agree that what he did was immature and juvenile. I am confidante it was just a mistake and I feel it is possible to leave these two issues aside. There is, however, the issue of irrationality to consider. The government opposition, which represents a sizable portion of the population, was doing nothing but presenting him with well thought-out empirical analyses and rational arguments. I would, therefore, characterize his response as irrational. From this I imply that his reaction was to some degree ideological. For those readers who believe I am making too much of a personal character flaw - and throwing a book at someone is, indeed, a character flaw - I think it goes beyond that; I argue that it was his ideological viewpoint that was the basis for the reaction (the character flaw merely making it apparent for all to see).

I want my government, when dealing with public issues, to approach it with rational, open, and scientific debate. Reasoned arguments put together by a sizable portion of the population should not be reacted to this way by their own government. Am I asking too much of our government officials to offer factual counter-arguments? I simply don’t feel sorry for the fact that Ralph Klein seems so shocked that Albertans’ would react this way when his toys with their health. I take it as a given one will come down where they will on this kind of data. But that Ralph Klein reacted in such a way strongly supports my initial impression that his “reform” agenda is being lead by his ideology. (Consider it a sort of “market religion” if you will.)

In the interest of being honest and open, I would like to clearly state that I really have no problem with what he has been suggesting. But this doesn’t change the fact that this is not the way I wish to see my government operate. The logic of the “reforms” is that if you offer a means for people to pay that can pay for private treatment, it opens up a spot in the public system (within certain limits discussed elsewhere) for someone else; thus shortening the wait times for all. This logic, in my opinion, is hard to counter. What the government has been extremely poor at doing is reassuring the public that we are not entering onto a slippery slope, leading inextricably to a two-tier healthcare system.

This point is worth expanding (because it could greatly help his plight): Ralph Klein likes to talk about his “third-way”, but he acts like we all inherently know exactly what he means. Which we don’t. We in Alberta have bearing down on us this huge example down South of what we do not want in a healthcare system to be. I haven’t even seen him offer opinion polls on the matter. Ralph: Make us feel that a path exists - and that we are on it - which leads to a healthier Alberta.

I agree that there is a healthcare dilemma, and I would even go so far as to suggest its solution probably lies in some type of “third-way”. I certainly believe that a public debate about healthcare is worth having, and I would even be so bold as to suggest issues of general health should also be addressed as well. (I have recently heard that Ralph Klein has turned down a televised debate. I had seen this as a great opportunity for educating the public on the details and implications of his reforms. He has stated that he thinks debate should be limited to the legislature; which leads me to a whole other set of issues.) If I was leading the debate on healthcare I wouldn’t worry; I think in actuality there is consensus over the issues and a lot of room for comprise. I feel that my remarks have been very brief so I will continue to write quietly about the broader issues. I start my essay by examining the Supreme Court decision that opened the whole debate. This healthcare issue is - with the appearance of stories like these - moving so quickly I sometimes feel that anything I write will be of little consequence by the time I return home. One reason to blog is to fight the feeling of powerlessness I have while living overseas.