That's a tough tightrope to walk, and it illustrates pretty well the break between politics and actual policy implementation. On the one hand you've got AGs hoping to become governors and governors hoping to make the jump to federal office--maybe even the presidency, in some cases--and on the other you have the appointees and career bureaucrats in state government whose job it is to improve health care in their state. For most of them, if they can tap federal resources to help achieve that goal, so much the better.
So you've got situations like this where certain prominent politicians in the state are filing lawsuits and basking in the national media glow, at the same time the state's health policy people are using the resources available to achieve common goals. You have states getting the retiree money, some opting to set up their own high risk pools (instead of leaving it to HHS to run), getting grants to beef up their premium oversight capacity, and (soon) getting planning grants to start working out the details of their health insurance exchanges.
And in one case, you've got the politician sitting at the top of the state bureaucracy forbidding the state's bureaucrats from applying for any federal money associated with the law. Now I think that's a stupid decision to make on behalf of the citizens of that state, but Tim Pawlenty apparently thinks he can run for president someday. So tough shit, Minnesotans.
Anyway, the moral is that the only people who want to see reform fail are politicians, usually those aiming for higher office (I'll be honest: I laughed when Bill McCollum lost that gubernatorial primary). Just about everyone else actually does want to use all the resources at their disposal to tackle access, cost, and quality issues.