The campaign “Fed Up With Taxes” has premiered its first television ad, which features a convenience store owner from Richmond displaying his coolers of soda and criticizing higher taxes on such a “large part of his business.”

“We don’t need to be increasing our prices on everything so people will go to southern states to save money on these products,” says Gary Emmons, the owner. Emmons’ concerns might be genuine, but the ad is disingenuous.

A two-liter bottle of soda, for example, would cost 22 cents more, or a can 4 cents more, under the taxes enacted by the Maine Legislature to fund DirigoChoice. Neither should prompt a rampant shopping exodus to New Hampshire.

Question 1, the people’s veto that “Fed Up With Taxes” successfully put before voters this November to repeal the Dirigo funding package, is deeper than the beverage taxes the campaign seems to target.

Of the new taxes for Dirigo, the beverage taxes are the most defendable. Levies on beer, wine and soda have been untouched for decades, and their increases are intended as health policy by dissuading their consumption.

Beverage taxes would also be most apparent, which makes them easy pickings. “Fed Up With Taxes” is railing against beverage taxes without acknowledging the other issues at stake with Question 1.

The companion tax, a 1.8 percent levy on paid insurance claims, is also deserving of scrutiny; the wisdom of using taxes on private insurance to fund public coverage is questionable. A study from the U.S. Census Bureau has recently revealed the outcome of such policy.

The Census has found the number of Americans without health insurance has declined, but along with the number of Americans carrying private insurance. The difference is being made with expanded enrollment in government programs, such as Medicaid.

This stems from the premiums of private insurance outstripping wages and inflation, according to The New York Times, and the struggles of employers to either maintain their health benefits or the size of their workforces.

By taxing paid claims on insurance, Maine risks undermining an already shaky private insurance market by increasing costs. This could, in turn, push more people to seek more affordable government coverage, such as Dirigo.

There are also overlooked parts of the Dirigo legislation the people’s veto wishes to overturn, namely the creation of a statutory re-insurance program, which is probably as close to a high-risk pool Maine will see as long as there’s a Democratic majority.

Yet these important facets go unrecognized by opponents, who are harping upon beverage taxes as the prime target. This seems like a political expediency; tax hikes on beer, wine and soda are so unpopular there’s no reason to mention anything else.

Except there is reason – the health coverage of thousands of Mainers, and perhaps thousands more, hangs in the balance. Although Dirigo won’t just disappear if the people’s veto is successful, its ability to provide coverage to its dependents will be harmed.

This is a serious issue that needs serious scrutiny. Solely focusing on beverage taxes may make for good television, but it only serves to obscure Question 1’s complete picture.