Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Medicaid expansion in Alabama: A voter’s guide

Medicaid expansion

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn and other congressional Democrats hold a press conference about Medicaid expansion in September 2021.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

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

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less