See this article and interactive map showing how each state ranks in health care overall, based upon cost, access, and outcomes.
First, it is not surprising to see how the southern States (and states that contain citizens who wish they were Southern, i.e. OK, AZ, NV, WY) tend toward the worst in health care cost, access, and outcomes. It is also great the article emphasizes these states all exhibit a hostility toward expanding Medicaid.
Texas, though part of that ideology, was still a shocker to me because major corporate media are always touting how wealthy it is and such a great place compared to that evil, awful "socialist" California. Here is the comparison: Texas overall 39 of 50/cost 45 of 50/access 42 of 50/outcomes 36 of 50. California overall 23/cost 38/access 16/outcomes 17.
New Mexico is better than people here in New Mexico think: overall 28/cost 16/access 30/outcomes 36. The reason New Mexico is better than Texas in terms of all three categories is because there is an expanded Medicaid here and a more liberal politics that helps guide people to doctors and hospitals. However, in New Mexico, due to not having enough doctors in poor and rural areas, access and outcomes are not what they should be in a decent society. To the extent this lack of access and outcomes occurs in any of the more urbanized and populated areas, it is because there are still not enough docs taking Medicaid there. In contrast, there are much more doctors in CA willing to take Medicaid in largely poor areas, and so access and results are better.
That leaves Texas, which probably has great medical care if one is well off or in a steady, good paying job is in Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio, but it begins to get pretty awful right about Lubbock, and falls off the cliff thereafter. And from what I know of professionals in Texas, many don't take Medicaid and an increasing number don't take Medicare, as they have enough rich people who have supplements to be choosey with.
To me, the most intriguing ranking numbers come from Utah. It ranked overall at 24, but it then had the weirdest rankings: cost 23/access 47/outcomes 4. What it shows is if you are not Mormon and you are a proletariat, you are screwed. And likely you are young, and won't remain there, so the outcomes are still only reflecting how insiders are treated. That's a guess, but based upon enough sociological reading over the years regarding Utah.
But, yeah, maybe if a disgruntled Californian is not wealthy, going to Texas is not such a great idea. Yes, there is no income tax in Texas, but the property tax rates are more than double of CA and NM. Plus, with the way Texas politics operate, there are still enough people who would rather elect idiotic grifters for governor, such as the current idiotic grifter, Abbott. Say whatever you want about NM, but if one has to leave CA for a place with inexpensive land values, I'll take the Land of Enchantment over the Lone Star State any day.
You may wonder why these states with bad outcomes are really so hostile to Medicaid: As I explained to a former head of the CMA, the reason Republicans won't pay higher reimbursement rates is because that is a way to ensure the program does not meet people's needs and sows frustration. It lets poor white people comfort themselves into believing government will never work for them, and the only reason those "Democrats" want Medicaid is to serve darker skin people. Initially, the doc didn't believe me, but when he went to Sacramento and sat down with various Republican politicians (he was, at least at that time, a Republican himself), he realized I was correct. He remains a dear friend who, now retired, always took Medicaid patients as a civic duty, even when his accountant would tell him he would lose a little money for each treatment of those Medicaid patients.
I shake my head at the complacency of people who don't want to move to a single payer system right now. And I mean it. Right now.
