Trump Failed to Repeal Obamacare. Now Maine Voters Are Deciding Whether to Expand It.

If Question 2 passes, Maine will finally adopt Medicaid expansion.

Michael Parent, left, gets instructions on submitting his ballots while voting November 7, 2017, in Portland, Maine.Robert F. Bukaty/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

When all the votes are counted from Tuesday’s elections, a little-known ballot initiative in Maine could prove to be one of the most consequential contests—impacting the health care received by tens of thousands of people and showing how voters feel about Obamacare after Republicans spent most of 2017 trying to undo the law.

Question 2 on Maine’s ballot is a simple proposition: Should Maine finally participate in the part of the Affordable Care Act that expands Medicaid to cover anyone who makes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (that’s $16,642 for an individual or $33,948 for a family of four in 2017). If the initiative passes, about 80,000 more people are expected to gain Medicaid coverage in the state.

Expanding Medicaid to a wider group of the working poor was one of the central elements of Obamacare. Under the law, the federal government initially pays the entire cost of the expansion—though the federal share eventually falls to 90 percent, with the states funding the remaining 10 percent. (That’s a much better deal for states than the traditional Medicaid program.) The way the law was originally written, Medicaid expansion wasn’t much of a choice for states: They would either have to accept the expansion or lose all of their federal Medicaid funding. But then the Supreme Court stepped in, declaring that states could choose to reject the expansion without jeopardizing their preexisting Medicaid funding. States controlled by Democrats quickly adopted the expansion, but many red states refused to sign on. To date, 19 states with Republican leaders in either the state legislature or governor’s office have refused to expand Medicaid.

Politicians in Maine have tried over and over again to expand Medicaid in the past, with the state legislature voting for five bills to do so. But each time, Republican Gov. Paul LePage has issued vetoes. Liberal groups in the state gave up on that route, and earlier this year they collected enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot for this fall. Not surprisingly, LePage has vocally opposed the ballot measure.

For a rural state like Maine, expanding Medicaid could shore up finances for a number of hospitals that are in danger of closing—more than half the state’s hospitals are currently losing money. Part of the problem is that the ACA cut funding for health providers who provide uncompensated care to uninsured patients—patients who were now supposed to be covered under Medicaid. But when Maine and other states refused to expand Medicaid, health care providers were left without any way to recover those funds.

Studies have shown that Medicaid expansion has both benefited the people who gain coverage and also reduced costs for everyone who buys insurance. A 2016 government study looked at how Medicaid expansion lowered the cost of premiums for people who buy insurance on Obamacare’s individual exchanges, finding (when controlling for various factors) that premiums were 7 percent lower in places with Medicaid expansion. And a study in Health Affairs concluded that people with lower incomes were in better financial shape in the states that took expanded Medicaid. According to the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “On a per-state basis, the nine states with the largest coverage gains since 2013 expanded Medicaid.”

CBPP

Medicaid expansion generally polls well across the country, but it’s hard to know how it’ll fare on Tuesday. This is an off, off year election, so turnout is impossible to predict. (The state’s other big race, Question 1 on the ballot, is about granting a casino license in a southwestern county.) Maine is the first state where voters will have a direct say over whether or not to adopt Medicaid expansion, but it might not be the last. Groups in Utah, Alaska, and Idaho are keeping an eye on the results and might launch their own ballot initiatives next year.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate