We agree with higher taxes on syrupy beverages to improve health, especially in Maine children, who are growing dangerously obese. We agree with higher beer and wine taxes, which haven’t increased for decades.

We agree with a statutory re-insurance program – essentially a high-risk pool – to help reduce insurance costs for healthier Mainers by insulating them from premiums dictated by others with chronic maladies.

We agree, in principle, with government programs to cover the uninsured or underinsured. We agree this state, through its policies, has done an excellent job in covering more of its citizens.

But we also believe in fair taxation. We disagree with taxing private insurance, which is already too expensive, for public insurance. We object to new taxes as solutions for old problems. Last-minute tax increases, as part of political wheeling-and-dealing, also raise our ire.

And we’re unsympathetic to the argument that DirigoHealth is a victim of expectations. Its architects alone are to blame for inflating Dirigo’s ability to accomplish ambitious goals of universal coverage and reducing charity care in hospitals.

Dirigo has avoided scrutiny for too long. Now, voters are asked to approve a bevy of new taxes to continue the Dirigo experiment, despite reluctance to honestly debate whether the program is actually working.

That discussion must come first, before Maine people pay an additional penny for any glass of wine, can of soda or bottle of beer. On Nov. 4, we urge a “Yes” vote on Question 1, to repeal the new taxes to fund Dirigo.

Improving the health of Maine people can increase their wealth, since we pay too much for health insurance in this state, without question. Yet it’s unproven whether Dirigo is helping or exacerbating this problem.

It professes savings through the complicated calculations of its current funding source, the Savings Offset Payment, yet program enrollment is capped and its budget still runs red.

To many, Maine cannot afford to lose Dirigo. But can Maine afford to keep it? Over five years, the program has not inspired confidence that, with more taxpayer money, it can succeed.

Hence the last-minute nature of this tax plan. Legislators debated into the darkness about it, until a compromise – culled from ideas in past reports and bills – returned like Lazarus to be passed.

This led to tax inequity. If these beer and wine taxes are health policy, none should be exempt. Exclusion of smaller brewers and vintners – a ploy to quiet their lobby – says these taxes were political, not populist.

An inability to increase hard liquor taxes, too, is another glaring inequity.

Dirigo, as well, has lost its trailblazer status. The insurance plan in Massachusetts, with its blend of mandates and subsidies, has its imperfections, but is the new standard of state plans.

Should Maine go that way? It’s worthy of asking. What isn’t worthy is more taxpayer dollars for a program that’s neither met expectations nor had its performance accurately measured for effectiveness.

Please vote “Yes” on Question 1.