This November, Mainers will vote yea or nay on two ballot initiatives. Question 1 concerns authorization of a casino in York county. Question 2 asks voters to approve an expansion of Medicaid, a.k.a. MaineCare, to those now unable to qualify for assistance.

The casino issue has created very little public controversy and will appear on the ballot oddly reticent regarding any particulars. Its wording vaguely asks that a “certain company” be permitted to conduct gambling with part of the profits “going to the specific programs described in the initiative,” but not mentioning the programs. For those bothering to read the proposed legislation the company remains unnamed. The “specific program” sweeteners, comprising 55 percent of the casino’s income, mostly target support from public education and harness racing, with 2 percent towards veterans assistance and a 1 percent payout to the Penobscot Nation. In the election booth the measure will be understood by most as simply: “Do you favor another venue for instate gambling?”

Maine has already established its devil’s bargain with tobacco and alcohol. Soon its coffers will reap benefit from the sale of what recently was an illegal substance even though far less harmful and addictive than smoking or drinking. Should more gambling be encouraged as another addictive income stream to underwrite Maine’s provision of a sadly barebones governmental infrastructure? Too many Mainers already gamble their earnings away on the state lottery, hoping to escape the generation to generation entrapment of Maine’s suppressed wages. A state-sanctioned casino will only enable additional poor investment opportunities for Maine’s many income-challenged hardworking citizens.

Question 1 will be an interesting bellwether as to the health of Maine’s once shared conservative values, regardless of party affiliation, regarding public policy endorsement of accepted moral and ethical standards. So far, I’ve heard no great outcry against Question 1 from either side of the aisle.

As election day nears, a vocal Republican resistance to Question 2 continues to try to influence its defeat by arguing that the wording of the ballot measure is rigged in favor of passage. They insist that Mainers will be especially confused by the word “qualified” in referring to those who would gain government assistance for medical care under the new guidelines for eligibility.

The ballot’s wording now stands as: “Do you want to expand Medicaid to provide healthcare coverage for qualified adults under age 65 with incomes at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level, which in 2017 means $16,643 for a single person and $22,412 for a family of two?”

The original wording only mentioned the percentage designation, requiring some math and knowledge of the federal guideline to figure out the income threshold qualification for acceptability. After pressure from conservative critics and some appeasement from the Secretary of State, the ballot’s current wording still refers to “qualified” adults but conveys the math part far more clearly. It would seem even more straightforward to just say that expansion of coverage would benefit all those with incomes under the now more easily understood income levels. The operative word being “all.”

Question 2 continues to roil those who profess that they are of course in favor of assistance to the truly needy. Their bone of contention is with those “able-bodied,” between 21 and 65, who currently don’t qualify for medicaid despite their comparable poverty to those that do qualify by their circumstance of age, parenthood or disability.

The real rub for the conservative establishment is that, as they see it, Question 2 will provide “government subsidized health coverage to able-bodied childless adults,” wastefully giving public assistance to “working-age adults who have the physical capability to procure their own health insurance.”

The Republican position on Question 2 couldn’t be more disingenuous or less humane. Beyond seeking its defeat, at the federal level they repeatedly call for an elimination of Medicaid and Medicare altogether. For them, healthcare should remain a commodity rather than a right. Healthcare should only be provided to those that can pay their way. Being “able-bodied” is a deceptive argument calculated to stigmatize those whose paycheck can’t suffice in an ever more greedily heartless economy.

If gambling establishments are the people’s will, fine. Tax them only as any other business is taxed. The government shouldn’t be their business partner.

If private health insurance is truly what people prefer, let that choice compete against collective insurance competition such as a Medicaid Buy-In program or Medicare for All, as Bernie Sanders proposes, or against a privately insured state-run universal healthcare system such as Hawaiians have enjoyed since the early 1970s.

Question 1 should read: “Do you believe Maine should promote gambling as an example of The Way Life Should Be, consistent with traditional state stewardship of family and civic values, and a proper means of providing for K-12 education, honoring our debt to Maine veterans and compensating our indigenous peoples?”

Question 2 should be changed to: “Do you agree that able-bodied Mainer’s without dependents should be singled out for continued denial of assisted medical coverage because private health insurance for such care is priced beyond the means of their able-bodied earning power?”

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.