What's the functional difference between Blue Cross/Blue Shield and for-profit insurance companies

That is, are their premiums lower, are their benefits different, do they treat customers differently?

50+ years old.

"Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield insurance companies are franchisees..."

"Many plans are administered by not-for-profit organizations, while others are for-profit companies. (Though all Blue Cross Blue Shield plans must pay Federal income tax under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, some plans are still considered not-for-profit at the state level.) The 14-state WellPoint is the largest Blue Cross Blue Shield member, and is a publicly traded company."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Cross_and_Blue_Shield_Association

...over half of which are still not-for-profit.

that is, did the non-profit entity treat customers better than the for profit entity?

They're all FOR profit now, just like those co-ops will be, too.

PUBLIC OPTION GOOD, SINGLE PAYER BEST!

there are a number (dozen or more?). Some retained their non-profit status, the others are run for profit now, just like the rest of the insurance industry.

As for the non-profits, I'm not sure. When my insurance carrier dropped me after I had heart surgery, I shopped around for replacement. BCBS of California made me the "best" offer... $10,000 deductible, $1200 a month and they would cover me (I believe with a lifetime cap too, but won't swear to it). That was 15 years ago. Been without health care (and insurance) ever since. I really hope I don't get sick.

Anyway, that doesn't answer your question. But my feeling is NO, BCBS isn't any better run in the non-profit version than in the for-profit version.

In fact, this is basically the same idea being trotted out again, and if it passes they will probably be privatized like BS/BC was through a death-of-a-thousand-cuts of offering more "choice", "competition", and "efficiency" incrementally.

There is a breathtaking amount of misinformation about that on this site.