The States' Contradiction

Not too long ago, I came across an article discussing Texas HMOs' strong and exponentially growing profits due to their Medicare and Medicaid niche. The numbers are particularly interesting considering Texas is one of 26 states challenging the constitutionality of health reform and has a national joke governor who would rather secede from the union than give in to the "evils" of federal government involvement. "Overall, Texas HMOs reported [a] net income of $404.1 million in 2010...." That's strictly profit from a greater than $12 billion dollar business. Clearly, there is serious need for such services in the state (and every state). While anti-big government Perry touted a nearly recession-proof economy, the state was substantially benefitting from federal programs.

At least not in 2012.

But Texas isn't the only state. I'm picking on it because the article reminded me of my time as a policy intern at the Texas health department (Yeah you read that right - I have Texas roots). The Austin office buzzed from 7 am until midnight daily with policymakers scrambling to apply for as many health reform grants as possible in an attempt to improve their population's abysmal state of health (Texas ranks 44th in national healthcare rankings). Meanwhile, down the street, the Attorney General prepared his case against health reform. Never mind that Texans need some sort of improvement to their healthcare system.

Which brings me to my point: contradiction. Why is there a such a disconnect between the data (and what the population needs) and state action? It is well documented that Texans are struggling on the health care front and that Medicare and Medicaid are big business for the state. And yet, the state is reaching for partisan ideals, and is not the only one doing so. Does it really just boil down to a political move?  Down the line, will this be another big lone star "Oops?"