The scam of “Stop the Scam” worked.

The vast majority of voters rejected Question 1, Maine’s ballot initiative that would have provided tax funded home care to any and all qualifying residents regardless of their ability to pay.

The People’s voice rang out loud, but not especially clear. Given that Mainers still strongly favor Medicaid expansion, approving that measure just one year ago, it’s strange that they suddenly disapproved of what would seem very kindred legislation. Especially when their majority choice for a new governor reinforces that most Mainers, at least those who vote, want leadership that’ll finally green light the electorate’s clear directive to expand tax funded healthcare to everyone who can’t afford insurance coverage.

Certainly a major contribution to that confusing dichotomy, or maybe just what I personally find perplexing, is that Janet Mills did openly opposed passage of Question 1, as did all the gubernatorial candidates. Maintaining the status quo’s failure to address the issue of affordable in-home care was one thing they could all agree upon, mainly opposing it as a tax hike that would take them down a road best avoided when navigating one’s way to the Blaine House. Seizing the moment in televised debate, Mills additionally interjected the ostensibly reasonable objection that any proposed legislation should first undergo some representative governance before being directly decided by a unilateral populist decree.

What remains troubling about that reasoning was that Question 1 was actually an indirect state statute, meaning that elected leadership did have opportunity to weigh in on the issue before kicking the can to the ballot box. Strange, that a distinguished sitting attorney general could so distort or inarticulately misrepresent that electoral reality. So strange, it seemed to me, that I took her at her word and assumed that the initiative was indeed a contrived end-run by direct grassroots democracy preemptively disregarding any attempt at a normal representative process to lawmaking.

Shortly afterwards, my puzzlement continued when some “No on 1” proponents cited how the current legislative session’s lack of support for “LD-1864” was proof positive that the proposed ballot initiative was plainly “bad law.” An overly arduous Google check eventually confirmed that LD-1864, a bill which “died between houses” back in April, was in fact the quite customary legislative origin of Question 1.

Next, I encountered seemingly altogether contrary reportage that Question 1 opponents were steadfastly asserting that the referendum was “so convoluted and legally questionable that it would have been defeated easily had it been a bill submitted to the legislature.” A healthcare industry leader, directly invested in institutional care rather than home care, was quoted as saying “We would kill this in the Legislature without batting an eye,” clearly underscoring why proponents of LD-1864 felt they’d have a better shot taking a referendum’s alternative route.

The real scam regarding Question 1 was the concerted effort of politics as usual to collaboratively defeat a growing grassroots governance’s attempt to benefit everyone rather than just the haves pitted against the have-nots. Haves could be well satisfied with having what they have, especially those having more than they’ll ever need, but persist in wanting even more, even if that unnecessary want causes others to experience want because of actual need.

Then there’s the “I worked for what I’ve got” top-down denial that no matter how hard most people work they’re never be able to take up residence on Easy Street. Rejecting Question 1 continues the dispassionate politics of accepting that health dignity in one’s waning years will remain prey to the fickle reality of a for-profit dominated delivery system which lets far too many fall through the cracks rather than providing a compassionate safety net.

Question 1 ultimately failed in overcoming overwhelming “official” disinformation and fear-mongering.

More than 60 percent of voters apparently bought into the NO on 1 hyperbolic rhetoric that passage would have a broad negative tax impact imposed by a shadow government which would force mandatory union membership on Maine’s existing home care industry and drive tax oppressed professionals and businesses out of the state. Or, unsure of what to believe, most simply voted on the side of caution.

In reality, more than 90 percent, maybe 97 percent, of Mainers would pay $0 in new taxes if Question 1 became law. Funding would come from a privileged tax loophole only afforded to the most wealthy Mainers.

Where to go from here? Maine’s need for affordable home care will only increase. If citizen initiatives aren’t the answer then Maine’s leadership needs to start providing actionable alternatives on its own.

The holy grail of “high-paying high-quality jobs,” even if attainable as a solution to Maine’s economic inertia, won’t help all those Mainers who never were availed of them and are now “aging in place” in a place where they can’t afford to care for themselves.

The ongoing scam that continued legislative inaction can substitute for actual stewardship in solving fundamental perennial problems can’t last forever.

The problem with Question 1 wasn’t that it was bad law but that it’s a mirror reflecting a reality Maine’s mainstream politics remains unwilling to truly acknowledge.

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.