Does that make sense to you?

My consolation in all of this is that I expect Anthem BXBS to be gone in 15 years. And I'll still be here.

This particular version is a good company, that's why I chose them. I'm sure they have their faults, but honestly, Blue Cross =/= the same thing every time.

@banmojo: How can a not-for-profit insurance company make a profit?

This is one of the worst (if not the worst) "company" designations in the vote-off. As many have already said, "BlueCross BlueShield" isn't a nationwide company. Each state is different, some are for-profit, some are not-for-profit, the only thing they have in common is that they license the BCBS trademarks. If BCBS of Rhode Island denied your claim, BCBS of Oklahoma had nothing to do with it.

Having BCBS in there is more like "worst brand in America" - not "worst company."

Yes, I know they're separate companies...that just happen to have the same name. But the fact is:

BCBS of GA = SUCK
BCBS of CA = SUCK

Epic failure to actually provide the insurance you pay for makes you worse than CNN, BCBS.

CNN used to be the "Walter Cronkite" of news integrity. Now it's no better than Fox and MSNBC for biased, sensationalized reporting.

I think people are so sick of entertainment-focused news that if a network went back to old school hard-hitting reporting with honest to goodness stories without the Hollywood grabbing headlines, it would sweep ratings.

I often watch BBC news because it's the only place I can watch news without tarted up female newscasters, sensationalized stories, political bickering mixed in.

Health insurance companies are murdering swine whose practice of denying services ultimately kills people.

Lemme guess... Fox?

And if you think that O'Reilly isn't a multimillionaire elitist snickering condescendingly at you guys once the cameras are switched off, I pity you.

CNN are just lip gloss and hair spray swine bellying up to the hog trough of PR fax blasts and calling it news.

CNN is so blown out of the water on this one, there isn't even floatasim left over. Lets see a news agency that sometimes puts it's own spin on things or an insurance company that bails out on you when you most need them. No contest.

@youbastid: Oh, I don't mean they're honest in the sense that they "tell the truth". They're just "honest" in the sense that everyone understands what their real agenda is. CNN, not so much.

If you think CNN is not liberal, then you need help. Go watch the republican debate on CNN. The fact that you think that, makes me want to pull my hair out.

To everyone complaining that Blue Cross Blue Shield is run by several separate entities - I would be completely willing to vote against "health insurance companies" rather than specifically Blue Cross.

life vs news
really hard choice there consumerist.

Most BCBS companies are not-for-profit (not same as non-profit). They aren't as evil as some of the other BCBS companies out there. They should really not lump all of them in with each other. When your claim is denied, it isn't denied by BCBS, its denied by the local insurance group. The only reason they share the same brand is so that I can go from one location to another and still stay "in-network".

@truthie: Well that sounds like a better tone out of you. You were sounding like a BCBS PR rep there. When I worked for the State of California while I was living in Chicago I had either BC or BS of California. The admin people at my doctor's offices were often impressed with their coverage and impressed by their high limits on coverage. Now that was over a decade ago and things may have changed.

But of course I was with the state government as well which we all know they usually get really good benefits and would be in a very large group plan due to the volume of employees they'd have to cover so they are little more sensitive to their subscribers needs. I'd suspect that small firms like my current employee would not have the same level of service a huge state government would have.

I can't complain about Blue Cross, they have paid some very large bills for surgery for me with no hassles at all, Something near 1/2 million of which I paid only a few hundred. Never had any problem with them whatsoever.

CNN on the other hand is so biased as to have NO credibility at all.

For example, my experiences with Blue Cross of California were awful and represent everything bad about health insurance companies. No surprise, they are part of Wellpoint, the Evil Empire of health insurance. My experiences with Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina were great, though -- they both had very good customer service and never really created any problems when paying a claim. Maybe this is because they were non-profit and chartered by the state government of NC. An apples and oranges comparison.

If you're nominating a health insurance company, why not United Healthcare? They are the company who paid their former CEO (accused in the whole stock options backdating scandal) $160 million to get rid of him. Now that could pay for a lot of health care.

Dobbs: Faux "independent" blue-collar spokesman; racist, anti-immigrant
Cooper: "Look at me I look so pretty in hurricanes!" [serious face]
Blitzer: "Thanks for that excellent reporting, somebody else"
King: "Was that your take on it, Paris?"

And do I have to go into HLN? Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck...gag

I agree that it's iffy with BCBS, because each state has its own BCBS entity. I've run across good and bad BCBS's

I really despise CNN, and the joke it's turning into. Also, just noticed a little t-shirt icon next to some of their headlines - I guess you can now get t-shirts with some of the "funnier" or stranger headlines? Urgh.

www.bcbs.com: The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is a national federation of 39 independent, community-based and locally operated Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies.

__
You can't say ALL BCBS plans are bad or evil or whatever. There are even some that are GOOD. So by the same token, you could call them ALL good? I think not.

I still don't agree with having subsidaries nominated. It should be the whole company. Thought that when MTV was up as well. These are huge media conglomerates, and we are only singling out one little subsidary. Whole companies shoudl be nominated, or not at all.

So I was just reading an email that I received from my insurance carrier (Aetna) about their delay in their ending coverage of monitored anesthesia for colonoscopies. They said because of misinformation given to the public from websites (like the consumerist I'd imagine) they delayed pulling the plug on covering anesthesia. They didn't say they were abandoning their plans just yet just delaying them until they can strong arm their members into agreeing to stop using monitored anesthesia in favor of the cheaper sedation methods. I would guess most of the BCBS affiliates will do the same and drop their coverage of monitored anesthesia if they haven't already.

As I get older, insurance companies make me very nervous and anxious. That's a shame.

Fox wins that score, by several fathoms.

Bit of trivia: 30% and higher of Fox News viewers still believe that Iraq caused 9/11. Gather from that what you will. Besides Fox should be tried on treason.

Blue Cross, on the other hand, is in a class by itself.

[news.google.com]

The best sources on that day was Slashdot.org and IRC. They stayed up and we had onsite folks firing off reports on the pages that kept us up to date and was surprisingly accurate. The start of Web 2.0 was on that day when the citizen started to report the news as it happened.

@truthie: Which Blue Cross Blue Shield company do you work for?

I find myself agreeing with a republican. I guess I can live with that for now.

NO ONE has an insurance policy with Blur Cross Blue Shield. You have a policy with BCBS of Florida. or Anthem BCBS. or CareFirst BCBS.

It's like the STAR System ATM. yes, there may be a bunch of crappy banks, but just because some bank of part of the same ATM network as Bank of America doesn't make them any worse.

Are you going to hold BCBS of Florida or BCBS of Illinois responsible for the decisions of Blue Shield of California, even though they have zero influence over that company?

Keep in mind several BCBS insurers are either nonprofit or (at least partially) owned by a state government, while others are private behemoths like Anthem/WellPoint. Again, you can't lump them together.

All of that having been said, as long as you understand that CNN (and Fox and MSNBC) are entertainment networks, not news networks, you can adjust your filtering accordingly.

BCBS on the other hand, is just plain evil. They make a profit from deliberately denying service not based on your medical needs but on their bottom line. I personally have had nothing but trouble with them since the very first day I was "covered" by their organization.

BCBS is the best rationale I can think of for government run healthcare, and that's saying a lot.

Source: i used to work for Wellpoint.

It's not news. It's CNN

@coan_net

Perhaps that's part of the joke...?

Liberal Propaganda FTW!

::ducks::

It's unfair and inaccurate to lump all the BCBS affiliates together as one company. A few of them are pretty good overall. Some of them are awful. But the point is they are not all the same. Heck, there are even two separate BCBS companies in California (Blue Cross of CA and Blue Shield of CA).

I can has vote?

BTW, where is the current winner/loser ladder listed?

It would be unfair and inaccurate to lump them together as one company. Some BCBS affiliates are actually quite good. Some are awful.

Where's the vote button?

No votey clicky?