Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on May 1, 2014 at 3:23am

Great news! Appropriate sponsor, too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Juan 2-3 or more mi. on May 1, 2014 at 3:56am

Absolutely love sharing the roads with Divvy riders, riding in ways I would never ride, making commuting by bike that more visible. A fitting sponsor for such brave newbie riders.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on May 1, 2014 at 3:58am

I'm torn between "Yay! Money for divvy and great that divvy promotes health, so good move on Blue Cross' part!" and "UGH INSURANCE COMPANIES SHOULDN'T NEED TO ADVERTISE LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE FOR PROFIT ANYWAY." 

So torn. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on May 1, 2014 at 4:05am

 Michelle - Yes, I agree with you, but at the moment that's how our country works.  We've gotten a little closer with the ACA lifting pre-existings, coverage for kids and caps on total out of pocket expenses, but still....whoever decided to make public health into a for profit enterprise should be....spanked to say it lightly.  (disclosure, this is how I understand ACA's positive changes, may or may not be correct)

Juan - I'm a big fan of divvy - better to have more cyclists on the road, give more people who wouldn't have biked the opportunity to ride our beautiful city.  And I love having the option to use a divvy when I don't or can't have my bike with me.  It's an awesome alternative IMO.

Michelle Milham said:

I'm torn between "Yay! Money for divvy and great that divvy promotes health, so good move on Blue Cross' part!" and "UGH INSURANCE COMPANIES SHOULDN'T NEED TO ADVERTISE LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE FOR PROFIT ANYWAY." 

So torn. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on May 1, 2014 at 4:13am

Oh I know. It just makes me very angry haha it's definitely one of my hot-button issues. We're so far behind pretty much every other developed nation... and I think the CEO of Blue Cross made more money than this sponsorship just for himself last year, so it honestly seems like a paltry amount to pay for so much advertising, as compared to what the company is pulling in. 

Julie Hochstadter said:

 Michelle - Yes, I agree with you, but at the moment that's how our country works.  We've gotten a little closer with the ACA lifting pre-existings, coverage for kids and caps on total out of pocket expenses, but still....whoever decided to make public health into a for profit enterprise should be....spanked to say it lightly.  (disclosure, this is how I understand ACA's positive changes, may or may not be correct)

Juan - I'm a big fan of divvy - better to have more cyclists on the road, give more people who wouldn't have biked the opportunity to ride our beautiful city.  And I love having the option to use a divvy when I don't or can't have my bike with me.  It's an awesome alternative IMO.

Michelle Milham said:

I'm torn between "Yay! Money for divvy and great that divvy promotes health, so good move on Blue Cross' part!" and "UGH INSURANCE COMPANIES SHOULDN'T NEED TO ADVERTISE LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE FOR PROFIT ANYWAY." 

So torn. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sol on May 1, 2014 at 3:17pm

Actually, I believe Health Care Service Corporation, the parent company, and its subsidiary bcbs insurance companies technically qualify as not for profit mutual reserve companies. So, while they may not have "profits" in a technical sense, they have accumulated huge "reserve surpluses" in the past several years which are way larger than required to preserve their solvency while at the same time jacking up rates and paying huge bonuses to executives. The Divvy sponsorship is not even a small drop in their reserve bucket. That said, Divvy could certainly use the money.

• ▶ Reply