This story was originally published in Reckon.
In April of 2022, Reckon and partners including Essential Partners, Cortico, and Bridge Alliance, hosted conversations with Alabamians under 40 about the future of their state for a project called Bridge Alabama. This guide focuses on an issue raised in those conversations.
What’s Medicaid?
It’s the public health insurance program for low-income Americans. It’s designed to help people afford things like doctor’s appointments, lab work and surgeries. Each state runs its own Medicaid program, funded with federal and state money.
Eligibility – who qualifies for Medicaid – varies from state to state
Back in 2010, the Affordable Care Act expanded which people are eligible for Medicaid, extending it to adults up to age 64 with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level, which in 2022 is about $27,750 per year for a family of four.
But many Republican-led states, including Alabama, pushed back against the ACA’s Medicaid expansion requirement, arguing the federal government was overreaching. The Supreme Court struck down the requirement in 2012, ruling that Medicaid expansion had to be optional for states.
To date, 38 states and the District of Columbia have adopted Medicaid expansion. In those states, the federal government covers 90% of the costs of the program.
Just 12 states, including Alabama, have not expanded Medicaid. Most of them are in the South. Because they didn’t expand Medicaid, it’s harder for low-income people to qualify to receive Medicaid in these states.
Alabama Medicaid is a bare-bones program. Coverage is only available to children, people with special health care needs and some caregivers.
For example, an Alabama parent with one child can’t earn more than $3,135 a year and still qualify for Medicaid. If that same parent and child lived in Virginia, which expanded Medicaid in 2019, the parent could earn up to $24,000 a year and keep their coverage.
Now the federal government is trying again to entice holdout states. Last year’s federal coronavirus relief package included financial incentives for non-expansion states to expand Medicaid. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey has said she’s “open to discussion” but continues to question whether the state can afford it.
Why is it controversial?
In the first years after the ACA (often nicknamed “Obamacare”) passed, Alabama’s conservative leaders balked at the potential cost and questioned the constitutionality of the federal legislation dictating how a state ran its healthcare programs.
In recent years, though, Medicaid expansion has lost much of its stigma. A recent poll from expansion advocates showed two-thirds of respondents supported expansion. More than 100 Alabama organizations, including the state hospital association and medical association, have grown more vocal in their support of Medicaid expansion, saying it could insure an additional 284,000 Alabamians, create more jobs, reduce reliance on emergency rooms for basic healthcare, and improve the state’s poor health outcomes.
Even Republican former Gov. Robert Bentley, who refused to expand Medicaid while he was in office, recently called on Gov. Kay Ivey to move forward with expansion.
Although few Alabama leaders outright oppose expansion now, the ones who express skepticism continue to question how Alabama would pay for it.
A study released this year projected that Medicaid expansion would cost Alabama an additional $225.4 million over the next six years, but could save the state an estimated $398 million.
Who is working on the issue?
Cover Alabama is the state’s largest Medicaid expansion advocacy organization. It’s a nonpartisan coalition of more than 100 organizations across the state, including medical associations, faith groups, businesses and consumer advocacy groups.
Regionally, Southerners for Medicaid Expansion is a multi-state coalition of expansion advocacy groups in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina.
Solutions from other states
States that have expanded Medicaid have improved access to care for low-income adults, seen fewer premature deaths among older adults, reduced medical debt, and seen a drop in hospital uncompensated care costs, according to the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities.
Several non-expansion states in the South, including Georgia, Florida and Tennessee, have chosen to partially expand Medicaid by extending Medicaid to birthing people for longer than the six weeks postpartum required by federal law.
In April 2022, after lobbying by advocates, Alabama extended pregnancy Medicaid from six weeks to one year postpartum. This has the potential for significant impact; because eligibility requirements are broader for pregnant people, Medicaid covers about half of all births in Alabama.
The state extended pregnancy Medicaid in two parts: Alabama Medicaid set aside about $4 million in its budget to extend pregnancy Medicaid to six months postpartum; then the Alabama legislature approved a state general fund budget with another $4 million earmarked to bump the coverage to a full year. Legislators have called it a “pilot program.”
How can I get involved?
There are different pathways that states like Alabama can take to expand Medicaid, involving the governor, state legislators and the Alabama Medicaid agency itself. Anyone interested in Medicaid expansion can write or call their state senator and state representative ( find yours here by clicking on the map and entering your address) or the governor’s office.
For those interested in advocacy and information, Cover Alabama offers updates via free email subscription, an online petition to sign, and invites organizations to apply to become Cover Alabama members.
Social media hashtags on Medicaid expansion include #ExpandMedicaid, #CoverAlabama, #south4medex and #ALpolitics.
Resources
- Alabama Medicaid Agency site
- Cover Alabama Coalition, coveralabama.org
- “The Economic Impact of Expanding Medicaid in Alabama”, a 2022 report from the Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama and Jacksonville State University
- “New moms are cut off Medicaid in much of the South. Why some states are considering a change” an overview of pregnancy Medicaid expansion from Reckon
- “Alabama poised to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage” from Reckon
- Southerners for Medicaid Expansion
- Medicaid expansion data, information and research from Kaiser Family Foundation
- Medicaid expansion information and research from Center of Budget and Policy Priorities




















A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.