Question 2 deserves a “No” and further study (Editorial) [masslive.com]

MassLive.com

Some issues should simply not be decided by referendum voting. One of the best examples in many years is Question 2 on the 2022 Massachusetts ballot.

The proposed law would direct the state insurance commissioner to approve or disapprove rates of dental benefit plans and would require dental insurance carriers to pay 83 cents per dollar on patient care.

How many voters really know much about the dental insurance industry whose future they are being asked to determine? It is safe to say Question 2 is catching vast numbers of voters by surprise.

For this reason, The Republican editorial board endorses a “no” vote and urges the issue be examined by the state Legislature. That process would provide the means to study the pros and cons carefully, rather than having this issue determined by voters who have neither the expertise nor the time to investigate it.

Proponents of a “yes” vote say too much in dental premiums are diverted away from patient care. Advocates of “no” say passage would cause premiums to skyrocket, would limit access to dental care and would cause many companies to reduce dental insurance coverage or drop it altogether.

Each side raises issues that merit careful review, and, at the same time, each side is playing on fear and dire warnings of what could happen. That’s no way to settle this complicated issue.

Industry executives argue that comparing dental coverage with medical coverage is not a fair and equal comparison, and that differences within the industry make it an apples-versus-oranges discussion. When the Affordable Care Act was put into law by an Obama Administration whose intent to balance coverage with availability was beyond question, dental coverage was purposely omitted from the equation.

That does not mean those calling for more investment in patient care should be ignored.

This has grown from a small, off-the-radar movement to one where many dentists - though not all - support it, and others are at least interested. Yet even during the campaign, not all in the dental industry were really sure. If they’re not, how can voters be?

In the opinion of The Republican, voting “no” is saying that a voter referendum is not the way to decide such a sophisticated question with far-reaching consequences. We endorse a “no” vote to allow for a more reasoned examination to take place in the Legislature.