Blues

In the Medicare world, "supplement" is a term of art, describing plans that enrollees in traditional Medicare can buy to cover what Medicare doesn't pay (a lot of people don't realize that traditional Medicare pays only 80% of charges, for example; if you buy a supplement, it will pay your 20% share on your behalf). That's the way your sister is using the term "supplement," and she's right--supplements are available to people enrolled in traditional Medicare and aren't available to people enrolled in an Advantage plan. (BTW, supplements are also known as "medigap" policies, in case you see that term being thrown around--they're the same thing.) Tricare isn't a supplement, but it acts as one for people who are enrolled in traditional Medicare--it covers people's out-of-pocket costs. Tricare also provides prescription drug coverage, so people with Tricare who are enrolled in traditional Medicare don't have to buy a standalone Part D prescription drug plan. There are no Medicare supplements that provide prescription drug coverage. Tricare does, but it can do that because it's not a supplement. What's also unique about Tricare is that it DOES cover the out-of-pocket costs of people who are enrolled in an Advantage plan. As far as I know, there are no products available to the general public that cover out-of-pocket costs for Advantage plan members, similar to what supplements do for people with traditional Medicare. And it's those out-of-pocket costs on an Advantage plan that can add up; regular people have no choice but to pay them themselves. I don't know what you mean by "aggregator," but Advantage plans are paid a set amount by the government for every member they have (about $1,000/month for healthy people, and more if the Advantage plan can upcode them to sicker categories). The Advantage plan then takes over all the member's healthcare. Every dollar they don't spend on the member goes into their pocket. So there's an incentive for the Advantage plan to control costs, and the most well-known methods are requiring members to see providers who are in that Advantage plan's network (traditional Medicare doesn't have networks), get referrals for specialists, and to require precertification for procedures. This is managed care, and it differs from traditional Medicare in that respect. Not being subject to the restrictions of an Advantage plan is always better than having to deal with the managed care elements of an Advantage plan, but it comes at a financial cost because premiums for supplements are higher than premiums for Advantage plans. A huge benefit of Tricare is that you can get the equivalent of a supplement for traditional Meciare plus a prescription drug plan for free. That's a hell of a deal, and takes out of the equation the only complaint about supplements--their cost.

This is all rather off topic in a thread about Texas Class A & B licenses, but I'll point out that the OP mentioned St. Brendan's Isle and Good Sam mail services. This is from the Good Sam website: https://goodsammailservice.com/residency I remember that St. Brendan's Isle had this same thing going on a few years ago, too, but don't know about currently. I think there's some connection to liveaboards, whose driver's licenses have their vessel number as their address. As for the OP's CDL complication, that would probably take the whole issue into a completely different sphere.

Well that's the beauty of laws--they're all written down and it can be determined what law was in effect on any given date. Common law marriages have been recognized in Texas for a very long time. The Texas Supreme Court said this, in 1847: "For the purposes of this suit the marriage was susceptible of proof by evidence of cohabitation, reputation, acknowledgment of parties, reception in the family, and other circumstances from which an inference of marriage could be drawn." The Legislature codified this standard in 1970, and its current version is found in the Texas Family Code, Section 2.401, which says a marriage may be proved by evidence that "the man and woman agreed to be married and after the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented to others that they were married." The elements have been the same for over 150 years--agreement, cohabitation, holding out. If anything, it's gotten harder to prove a common law marriage because in 1989, the Legislature eliminated the language about drawing an inference and the Supreme Court held that that means there must be evidence (either circumstantial or direct) of the agreement. It's a convoluted decision and not one I'm sure I agree with from a statutory construction standpoint, but it's the law. I'm with Dutch, and think your friends either got some bad advice or misunderstood the laws themselves. As you can see from just this thread, there's a lot of misinformation floating around about common law marriage, even from websites that seem authoritative (like the one linked to in this thread--it says "legally reviewed" and "fact checked" right on it so it might be right, right?). Quick googling and quoting one of the top search results without verifying the information is fraught these days on any subject, and it's particularly annoying when discussing laws because there is an authoritative source for every law--either a court decision or a statute. Beware sites that say what the law is but don't give a citation to the actual law. And even if they give a citation, look it up yourself because maybe a Chatbot wrote it and as I pointed out above, they have been known to make up supporting cases for legal propositions out of thin air. Or it might be what the website quoted in this thread did--had what looked like a link to the law but it was a law about an unrelated subject. If someone thinks this is too much work, perhaps they should do everyone a favor and just stay out of it. All of us are capable of quick googling and glancing at the results, and if we're individually misled, so be it. But we don't need to be spreading the misinformation to others.

I'm guessing you didn't actually check to see if this article is accurate. Such is the peril of quickly quoting information found on the internet. Plus you left out one of the most important parts of the article--that only a small minority of states allow common law marriage at all. But more importantly, the source looks reputable, with what looks like links for each of the nine states it says "fully recognize common law marriage." But the links for eight of the nine states listed don't go to anything related to common law marriage at all--they go to a section of the website on annulment and prohibited marriage laws. Now, for Texas, the link does go to a page called "Common Law Marriage in Texas" and that page does have a link (called "Texas law") to the Texas statute on informal marriage, so that's helpful. https://www.findlaw.com/state/texas-law/common-law-marriage-in-texas.html However, when I went to Findlaw's page on Texas laws, I couldn't find a link to any laws on common law marriage, so I'm not sure how someone just looking at their lists of laws might find it. But at least it's there, unlike for the other eight states. Findlaw's website offers very little other than its assertions about what the states' laws are, with no supporting authority. But the assertions aren't necessarily correct. (Which probably explains the lack of supporting authority, although Chatbots are now making up supporting authority out of thin air in the legal field--another reason to be very careful when relying on internet answers.) Anyway, if you click on the "list of states" link, you go to a page called "What is common law marriage?" describing each state's laws. https://www.findlaw.com/family/marriage/common-law-marriage-states.html As with the other page, it looks authoritative because the name of each state is a clickable link, but once again, those links go to the site's pages about annulment and prohibited marriage laws. Even in the case of Texas this time, for some reason. And speaking of Texas, the description of Texas law on informal marriage on that page isn't accurate. It says, "If a couple in Texas signs a form provided by the county clerk, agrees to be married, cohabitates, and represents to others that they are married, a common law marriage exists." That's not true. Or, well, it is true, but it's not the only way to establish a common law marriage in Texas. In Texas, a couple can enter into a common law marriage without signing any form, and ironically, the law providing that is the only actual common law marriage law for a state the website cites. And this page links to another page, called "Common law marriage FAQs." https://www.findlaw.com/family/marriage/common-law-marriages-faq-s-what-states-recognize-common-law.html It rebuts the myth that people are automatically deemed common law married if they live together for seven years by listing the requirements for a common law marriage, including: "Live together for a certain number of years (one year in most states)." That's wrong. As far as I know, no state requires people to live together for one year before they can declare themselves common law married, and it's certainly not "most states." In fact, I don't know of any state that sets a requirement for the length of time a couple cohabits at all, except New Hampshire, and that's a weird one--a couple has to live together for three years AND until one of them dies in order to have a common law marriage. https://www.nashualaw.com/blog/2017/06/common-law-marriage-in-new-hampshire-may-not-be-what-you-think/ So the statement that a couple must live together for one year in most states is wrong, as is the statement that they must live together for a certain number of years. If you read common law marriage cases, you'll quickly see that each one is unique, and the decision is based on facts in that particular case, which can include how long they lived together, but it's not definitive. A common law marriage can be established after cohabiting for a very short time, and living together for 40 years might not support a finding of a common law marriage--it depends on all of the facts in that particular case.

Who was declaring them married, and what was it based on? There had to be something the couple was doing.

The emissions check is only required in designated counties and Polk Co. where Livingston is located is not one of those counties. The Chatbot dropped the ball on this one, too. I think it needs to brush up on the nuances of Texas vehicle inspections before offering up any more opinions.

This is true of the prep-urchase inspection but it is not true for the state inspection that Evi is asking about. The chatbot really dropped the ball on that one. Fortunately, I understand they can learn from their mistakes.

Did you read the story linked to? Nomad Internet did not have its contract revised--that was Lou Schneider talking about what can happen to third party providers, and what did happen to a different third party provider he dealt with. But it's not what happened to Nomad Internet. They were engaged in fraud from the get-go. From the article: Here's the original petition filed by the Attorney General. It's interesting reading, and describes how Nomad initially engaged in one type of fraud, and when that was found out, pivoted to another type of fraud. It also talks about how Verizon did an undercover operation to determine if their SIM cards were being acquired and leased by Nomad without Verizon's authorization. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Nomad Internet Lawsuit.pdf The forum reader who wondered if Nomad was also engaged in insurance sales did not back up anything. A different reader misunderstood what was being discussed and backed up findings that were never even at issue (i.e., whether the company behind the Nomad Internet ad is the same as the Nomad Internet being sued). All of which would have been avoided if instead of throwing out baseless innuendo, Pat & Pete had taken a couple of seconds to see if what they were "wondering" about was factual, realized it wasn't, and not even put out in the universe that the people behind Nomad Insurance are the same as the fraudsters behind Nomad Internet.

They're not, and takes just a couple of seconds to find that out. And it's probably a lot fairer to Nomad Insurance to do that than to "wonder" and put it in people's minds.

How soon? If you want to be able to vote, South Dakota has a new law that becomes effective that will eliminate the ability to register to vote if you stay just a couple of days there while you set up your domicile--you can set up domicile in that amount of time but registering to vote will have different requirements. Also, even if you do manage to get registered to vote, the Secretary of State in South Dakota campaigned on denying fulltime RVers the right to vote in South Dakota. The new law clearly applies to people newly registering to vote, but there's no reason to be certain it won't be applied when "checking" voter rolls in the future. But if you don't care about voting, you can still easily domicile in South Dakota, just like always. As others have noted, if health coverage is important to you for the year before you get Medicare, look carefully at the Blue Cross policy your union provides. If it includes "Blue Card" access, you should have access to Blue Cross's nationwide network of providers. If it doesn't, you won't. You'll have to consult your policy. Or, actually, do you have a current Blue Cross ID card? Look on the front of the card, probably on the bottom right. See if there's a "suitcase" logo, which is a rectangular box with a half-circle on top (looks like a suitcase). If you have a suitcase, is there a PPO in the rectangle? Or is it empty? Or does it have something else in the rectangle?

Stuff like this drives me bats. Ask your friends where they got this information (it's more than one friend saying this??) and drill them for details. How do they know it's only Texas-licensed RVs. Who's weighing the RV and how is that happening, since RVs don't go through weigh stations. And the contents they remove before being allowed to move--do they just leave them there next to where the RV was sitting? Maybe if the people spreading nonsense like this have to actually defend it themselves, instead of just repeating it, they'll stop.

I wonder when they sent the letter. They rallied the troops for the other two bills but not this one, so I wonder if this one slipped by them, like the one in Texas that required vehicle inspections before the vehicle registration could be renewed. That one didn't come to their notice until after it had passed. I also noticed they talked only about the requirement that a person spend 30 days in South Dakota before registering to vote. As I pointed out in a previous post, the new law also changes the definition of "residence" and when language in a law is changed there is always a reason for it. In this case, the new definition includes the word "abode" in its definition of "residence." What is the effect of that change? Also, the new law says "residence" is defined as a place to which a person "returns after a period of absence," while before the new law, the definition was a place where a person "intends to return." (Interestingly, neither of the other two bills changed "intends to return.") So, what is the effect of the change this bill did make? It looks to me like the changes are more than just requiring people to spend 30 days in South Dakota before registering to vote, as the Escapees announcement appears to say. The 30 days obviously affects only new voter registrations, but I can easily see the other provisions of the new law being applied to people who are already registered to vote. And before just brushing this "possibility" aside, be aware that the South Dakota Secretary of State campaigned on tightening residency requirements "so that non-South Dakotans cannot register to vote using campgrounds, mail forwarding services or businesses like Walmart as their residential addresses." https://dakotawarcollege.com/sos-candidate-monae-johnson-tells-delegates-that-if-elected-her-goal-is-to-disenfranchise-voters/ Her letter doesn't make it sound like she'll be content with prohibiting only new people from doing that. Also, the Escapees announcement said, "new residents will be required to spend at least 30 days in the state within the calendar year prior to registering to vote the first time." "Calendar year" is not in any version of the bill or any of the amendments, so where did that even come from? Was it just a sloppy (and inaccurate) way of describing "a year"? But even "a year" isn't applicable. As originally introduced, the bill required a person to maintain his residence in South Dakota "for at least thirty consecutive days immediately prior to the day the person registers to vote." The "consecutive" was taken out early in the amendment process. Later during the process the requirement was maintaining residence "for at least thirty days in the year prior to submitting the registration form." But the "in the year" was taken out, and the final bill (and now law) says that the residence must be maintained "for at least thirty days prior to submitting the registration form." There's nothing about a year. So where is this "30 days in the year prior" coming from? Is it the Secretary of State? If so, that should be alarming, since it would be applying language that was proposed during the amendment process but explicitly removed by the Legislature, which is no bueno. Or, no bueno to people who care about laws, anyway. Or maybe Escapees misspoke. If that's the case, they need to review their announcements more carefully. Just reading version of the bill that was signed by the governor would show that there's no mention of either a year or a calendar year. People pay little enough attention to details as it is; at least give them the correct details to ignore, if nothing else so you're not part of the problem.

What color was the LEO? For that matter, what color are you? Your wife?

Well, this thread was much ado about nothing, but only because it concerned only HB 1232 and SB 124. No mention was made of SB 139, which as noted, passed and was signed by the governor. SB 139 isn't as explicit as the other two bills in that it doesn't specifically disallow using a business or commercial address on the voter registration application, but at least according to this article, it accomplishes the same thing: https://dakotafreepress.com/2023/02/07/sb-139-deibert-defines-residency-to-exclude-rv-voters-registered-at-mailbox-offices-campgrounds/ The current law says this: "For the purposes of this title, the term, residence, means the place in which a person has fixed his or her habitation and to which the person, whenever absent, intends to return." The new law says this: "For the purposes of this title, the term, residence, means the place in which a person is domiciled as shown by an actual fixed permanent dwelling, establishment, or any other abode to which the person returns after a period of absence." Interestingly, SB 190's sponsor lives in Spearfish, which has a KOA that operates a mail forwarding service. Maybe campgrounds' influence isn't as far reaching as some seem to think. Or maybe their sway applies only to keeping people from parking at Walmart. Also, in an announcement quoted upthread, Escapees thanked "Senator Castleberry" for reaching out over a weekend to inform them HB 1232 and SB 124 were dead. Not sure who that is, but if it's Senator Jessica Castleberry who represents Box Elder, she voted for SB 139.

An Escapees representative posted a reply in this thread to the original post, so they know about the OP's experience.

The only means testing for adults who are eligible for Medicaid under the ACA expansion is income; there is no asset or resource test: "The Affordable Care Act established a new methodology for determining income eligibility for Medicaid, which is based on Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI). ... The MAGI-based methodology does not allow for income disregards that vary by state or by eligibility group and does not allow for an asset or resource test." https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/index.html

He said he's in his 30s, so I assume he means Medicaid and not Medicare, plus he specified that he knows Medicaid operates differently depending on the state. If he were on Medicare because of a disability, I doubt he'd be even considering getting a marketplace insurance plan instead. I follow the health insurance for traveling fulltimers landscape pretty closely, and I've never seen anyone report any first-hand experience using Medicaid out of state while they travel. One reason could be that none of the Big Three (Texas, Florida, and South Dakota) expanded Medicaid to adults. (However, voters in South Dakota approved a ballot measure requiring expanded Medicaid coverage effective July 1, 2023.) Another reason is that if a person does qualify for Medicaid, as you know, each state administers its program differently, but one thing they have in common is that they don't cover out-of-state care except in very limited circumstances, like an emergency, or if residents of that state live near the border of another state and use facilities in that other state. Medicaid is like an HMO in that it has its network of providers it has contracted with, and won't pay for care received outside that network, and traveling fulltimers know that an HMO is not a good fit for them. If a person's income qualifies him for Medicaid, it disqualifies him for a subsidy on the marketplace. In other words, to receive a subsidy on the marketplace, a person has to have a minimum income--approximately $14,000 for a single person. If your income is below that, you can still buy a policy on the marketplace exchange, but you would have to pay full price for it, without any financial assistance from a subsidy. And if you do buy a policy on the exchange, you have to be sure it provides access to a nationwide network. Neither Texas nor South Dakota offers any such policies.

I don't think it should. You're the one who said, "They get my tax money, they get my vote."

I think you're thinking of NIMBY. Or maybe NAMBLA. But really, how much "tax" do you pay to a Texas county if you don't actually live there? Texas doesn't have an income tax, and it doesn't have a personal property tax. If an RVer doesn't own property in his Texas county of domicile, he's not paying property tax which is a local tax. Even if you include fees as taxes, are you paying anything other than the registration on your vehicles? My understanding is that the counties merely collect it on behalf of the state; Texas counties are allowed to assess a fee of about $10 in addition to the state registration fees. What other taxes or fees would a fulltime RVer be paying into the county coffers?

That's a reason to choose a Florida Blue EPO/PPO plan, but not a reason to choose a Select plan in particular, because access to the Blue Card nationwide network is not unique to Select plans; Options plans have access to the same nationwide network. Select and Options plans will work the same way when getting a broken bone fixed far from Florida. But not necessarily while in Florida, because the networks for Select plans and Options plans in Florida aren't the same, and that's why a person who wants coverage both in Florida and while traveling around the country should understand the difference between the Select and Options networks in Florida. That's great, but since the networks in Florida for Select and Options are different, your success with Select is situational. If you'd been seeking medical care in Tallahassee with your Select plan, the result could be very different, based on the provider searches I detailed above. Also, coverage itself is different for Select and Options plans. I found a Florida Blue provider manual, which illustrates that coverage and networks for Options and Select plans are not the same, and describes the EPO limitations that Select plans have, but Options plans don't. For BlueOptions: BlueOptions members have open access to any PPC provider without designating a primary care physician. Most BlueOptions plans allow members to seek out-of-network services from providers participating in the Traditional/PPS/PHS network. Covered benefits may be reimbursed at a lower non-participating level. Participating Traditional/PPS/PHS providers are considered out-of-network for PPC members, however, you may not balance bill the member. For BlueSelect: BlueSelect members have open access to any BlueSelect provider without designating a primary care physician. However certain services are subject to an Exclusive Provider Organization (EPO) provision and are only covered when rendered by providers designated by us as the exclusive provider for such service. Services that may be subject to the EPO provision are: Behavioral Health Dental services Durable Medical Equipment Home health/home infusion Laboratory Medical Supplies Orthotics/prosthetics Pharmacy Vision Services Participating Traditional (PPS/PHS) hospitals and facilities are considered out-of-network for BlueSelect members, and there is no balance billing protection. https://www.floridablue.com/sites/floridablue.com/files/docs/Prov-Participation-Plans-Products-ID Cards-UM-Standing-Auth-MASTER2-01-01-2023a.pdf The EPO limitations are also described in this overview of Select plans: https://www.floridablue.com/sites/floridablue.com/files/docs/BlueSelect Fact Sheet 2021 IU65 80647.pdf And finally, here's a description of the various Florida Blue networks: https://www.floridahealthconnector.com/individuals/florida-blue-provider-network/ The bottom line is that there are differences between Select and Options plans, and most people don't realize that, never mind know what the actual differences are. The differences will have little or no effect on people who are getting all their medical care outside Florida through the Blue Card program, but the differences could have an effect if getting care in Florida, as the Tallahassee example demonstrates, or if getting a particular service for which Select members have to use only "exclusive" providers, while Options members aren't limited to that subset of providers. That's what people need to be aware of when choosing between Select and Options, but it's pretty much never discussed. The focus is always on having access to a nationwide network, which is no doubt important, but the advice needs to drill down further, to alert people who do spend time in Florida that their Select plan will come with a smaller network in Florida as well as some EPO limitations on which providers are covered.

With a Florida Blue EPO/PPO plan with Blue Card access, finding an in-network doctor when you're not in Florida will be no problem at all. Fhkw9DPJ8V1g and wife have successfully used a Select plan for medical care in Florida, but that could be the result of their particular circumstances, like they're getting medical care only in the county where their plan is located (which means Select will have network providers there) and the doctors they like happen to be part of Select's network. I would suggest that anyone who is considering a Select plan instead of an Options plan (Select plans are cheaper) and is planning to spend time in Florida should read the post I linked to above, to see the possible disadvantages of a Florida Blue Select plan. I should add that I have read about dissimilarities between Select's and Options' networks for lab work, but never dug into it to find out the particulars. It's something to think about, but good luck finding out the particulars. Actually, I just found a concrete example of the difference between Select and Options networks. I searched for a Florida Blue plan in Tallahassee, in zip code 32301. There are Choice plans available there, but Florida Blue doesn't sell Select plans in that area. So let's see what the Select and Choice networks are like there. When I did the a "Hospital/Facility" search for Options plan network providers, there were 24 results. When I did the same search for Select plan network providers there were 15 results, and most of them were ambulatory surgical centers or urgent care centers. I don't know anything about the hospitals in Tallahassee, but did notice that two of what sound like major players, Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare and HCA Florida Capital Hospital, are part of the Options network but NOT the Select network. I confirmed that it wasn't just a search anomaly by going to the link for each facility and seeing the list of plans they accept; both had Blue Options listed and neither had Blue Select listed. I also did a search for primary care providers and there were 281 in the Options network and 57 in the Select network. I did similar searches for Bushnell, where Florida Blue does offer both Select and Options plans. The Select and Options networks there weren't significantly different: both networks had 8 hospitals/facilities in their network, and Select's network had 146 primary care providers compared to Options' network of 181. Pretty close. I see a correlation between whether Select plans are sold in a given area and Select's network size in that area. If Florida Blue offers Select plans in a given area, the Select network will be almost as big as Options' network in that area. But in an area where Florida Blue doesn't offer Select plans, Select's network will be significantly smaller than Options' network. So it looks to me like if you're buying your Florida Blue plan in the same area where you'll be seeking medical care while you're in Florida, Select probably has a robust network in that area. But if you're planning to spend time in areas of Florida other than where you buy your insurance plan, it could very well be that the Select network available to you will be much smaller than the Options network--like if you are in Tallahassee. And something else to think about: You might not be planning to have routine medical care in Tallahassee and therefore might not care what the network is like, since emergency care is covered no matter where you are. But if you had an emergency in Tallahassee and then had to be transferred to a hospital there for further non-emergency care, if you have a Select plan the Tallahassee hospital is going to be out-of-network (the hospitals in the Select network are ambulatory surgical centers). And remember that all of this network stuff is only in Florida. Select and Options plans have access to the same nationwide network of providers under the Blue Card program. (Although Select might have different coverage/providers when it comes to lab work--I just don't know.) That's why I think it might be worth the risk to get a (cheaper) Select plan if you're not going to be spending any time in Florida. But if you are going to spend time in Florida, you should consider that there are areas of Florida where a Select plan will have a much smaller network than an options plan, and possibly no in-network hospital if you need continuing care after an emergency.

Thank you for posting this. And since it's about privacy, I have a question. The link you provided for the article--is all that stuff after the question mark in the first line (where it has "?utm_source") used for identifying you? I see "email campaign" in there, and "newsletter," so I'm guessing you saw this article in a newsletter you received via email. Do you know what all the stuff after that does? I'm wondering if it identifies you (subscriber to the newsletter) as the one who forwarded the link. I truncated almost all of it and this will take me to the same place: https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/01/what-privacy-gets-you So all that stuff isn't necessary for bringing up that website, which makes me curious about what it's there for.

A Florida Blue EPO/PPO plan is the obvious and most popular choice. It provides access to a nationwide network of providers through its Blue Card program. But be aware that Florida Blue offers "Blue Select" and "Blue Options" plans. If I were going to be spending time in Florida in addition to traveling around elsewhere, I'd have "Blue Options." You can see my reasoning here: https://www.rvnetwork.com/topic/145664-insurance-coverage-in-florida/?do=findComment&comment=1086084

That's why I asked for the specifics on the OP's plan. The key is determining whether the plan includes the Blue Card Program. To the OP: Look at your Blue Cross ID card. Is there a symbol (probably in the lower right corner) that looks like a suitcase with "PPO" in it? If so, that means your plan is part of the Blue Card program. It could be that you have a suitcase that is empty, and doesn't have "PPO" in it. I don't really understand what that represents, so if you have that, you need to contact BCBS to find out what it means. But I do know that the "PPO in a suitcase" logo means the policy is part of the Blue Card Program, and the Blue Card Program provides access to a nationwide network of providers, which can be used when you're away from home. You just show your Illinois BCBS card that has the PPO in a suitcase logo to the Florida doctor you find using Blue Card's provider search, and as far as you'll be aware, your claim is processed just the same as if you were seeing an Illinois doctor back home.

Many PPOs (maybe even most, these days) have only a local network, and won't cover routine care when you're outside that area. The only difference between them and an HMO is that you don't need referrals for specialists; you still have to stay within the network for routine care. To the OP: What type of Blue Cross plan do you have? Is it an HMO or a PPO? If it's a PPO, does it provide access to the Blue Card Program? If so, you will have access to network providers while you are in Florida, or elsewhere in the United States. https://www.bcbsil.com/member/why-choose-us/blue-card