Connect with us

Politics

Obamacare Enrollment by State: Most Enrollees Live in Republican Areas

Published

on

Obamacare Enrollment by State: Most Enrollees Live in Republican Areas

More than 23 million Americans are currently enrolled in Obamacare plans, and nearly all of them will face higher health care costs next year if extra federal funding for subsidies expires, as scheduled, on Dec. 31.

Advertisement

Share of population enrolled in Obamacare plans

Advertisement

Source: KFF

Note: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming have not adopted the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

Advertisement

The New York Times

Democrats in Congress are withholding their votes on a government spending bill to demand that Republicans extend these subsidies, which lower the cost of insurance for people who buy their own health care coverage in marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act. Since Congress introduced the extra funding in 2021, enrollment has doubled.

These Americans live nearly everywhere in the country, but their numbers are especially concentrated in a handful of red states whose governments have declined to expand Medicaid programs to cover poor, childless adults.

Advertisement

Fifty-seven percent of people with this type of insurance live in Republican congressional districts.

Advertisement

Obamacare enrollment rates, by congressional district

Advertisement

Advertisement

Source: KFF

The New York Times

The difference is driven by extra enrollment in states that hadn’t expanded Medicaid since the Affordable Care Act encouraged states to do so in 2014. Obamacare was designed to cover the poorest Americans with Medicaid and then offer subsidies for people who earned more. There is a small share of the income distribution that overlaps; those people are eligible for Medicaid where it is available, and subsidies where it is not. As a result, more low-income Americans are eligible for subsidies in states that don’t offer Medicaid to all poor adults.

Advertisement

Since subsidies became more generous in 2021, overall enrollment has more than tripled in six red states: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and West Virginia. Of that group, only West Virginia expanded Medicaid.

Obamacare coverage has become especially widespread in south Florida, where there is a large concentration of low-wage workers and early retirees.

Advertisement

Most of the congressional districts with the highest enrollments are in states that Trump won in the presidential election, but not all are represented by Republicans in Congress.

Advertisement

Districts with the highest Obamacare enrollment rates

Note: Table only includes districts with rates 15 percent or higher. Margin of victory not shown for representatives who ran uncontested or faced another member of the same party on the November ballot.

Advertisement

The New York Times

Americans with relatively low incomes make up the largest group of enrollees by far. Nearly half of consumers nationwide earn less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level, around $24,000 for a single person in most states or around $48,000 for a family of four. These people tend to work in low-wage jobs that don’t offer health insurance, have part-time employment, or are freelancers who work gig jobs.

Advertisement

The extra subsidies are especially generous for this group. As long as they choose one of the two lowest-cost plans in their market, they don’t have to make any monthly payments for their premiums. Critics of the subsidies think these are so generous for this group that they have invited fraud. If the subsidies expire, the share of premiums for this group will go up to around $27 to $82 a month.

Advertisement

Obamacare enrollment, by income range

Advertisement

Advertisement

Source: KFF

Note: Two groups, the group of people below the federal poverty level and the group labeled as “Unknown” in the data, were excluded from the table. They make up 2.2% and 3.8% of total enrollees.

The New York Times

Advertisement

Americans who earn more than 400 percent of the poverty level, around $63,000 for a single person in most states or $129,000 for a family of four, make up a much smaller share of the market, around 7 percent. This group tends to include people who are self-employed or who work for small businesses, and early retirees — all of whom lack work-based options.

In dollar terms, the expiring subsidies will make the biggest difference for this group. With the extra subsidies, their payments are capped at 8.5 percent of their income. Without action, they will have to pay the full cost of their insurance next year, more than $2,000 a month for older people in the most expensive markets.

Advertisement

Some conservative critics of the extra subsidies argue this group earns enough that they should be expected to pay their insurance premiums without help.

Without the extra subsidies, analysts expect that millions of Americans enrolled in Obamacare will drop their insurance coverage or face higher prices. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that around two million more people will become uninsured next year without the extra financial help, and the number could rise to 3.8 million by 2035. Other analyses have estimated even larger reductions in coverage.

Exactly who will become uninsured is difficult to know. But Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF, a health care research group, said the losses were most likely to occur in the places where signups had risen the most since the extra subsidies became law in 2021.

Advertisement

Change in enrollment from 2020 to 2025

Advertisement

Source: KFF

Advertisement

Note: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming have not adopted the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. The margin of victory in the presidential election in 2024 is shown.

The New York Times

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending