Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Oxford Health Plan (OXHP) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DRRISK who wrote (1196)	3/2/1998 8:49:00 AM
From: Premier	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2068

<<You are also insulting to boot.>> Thats why I have decided to ignore him. Premier

To: DRRISK who wrote (1196)	3/2/1998 1:30:00 PM
From: S. M. SAIFEE	Respond to of 2068

DR RISK. My .02 on AETNA; This is the most inefficient beaurocratic monster, worst than medicare or medicaid. There are neumorous facilities processing claims some times more than five within one state. I am sure they have been loosing money in health care area, so more they buy other health care companies means less competition for stand alone company like OXHP. Aetna can afford this losses by making up in other risk writing businesses.

To: DRRISK who wrote (1196)	3/2/1998 2:02:00 PM
From: Raptor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2068

Ah thank you doctor. A pleasure to get a rise from you. Oh gee, I'm insulting huh? I find a negative in everything to support my short position? I promise you that if I find something positive, i will share it with you. I believe the readers of this thread have the right to have a counter balance to people like you, that seem to find a positive in everything to support your long position. Is that any different? And you make it so easy. You see, I mix a little insult with a lot of good information, a lot of thought. I'm sorry if it conflicts with your position. OK, this time you say that Oxford sells insurance better than anyone. Well, I bet you or I could sell a product very effectively if we priced it at a level that caused us to lose money consistently while our competition priced to make money? Understand? OK, now that Oxford is going to price the product to try to actually make money, we'll see how much more effective they are. Second, your discussion about the anemic short position is confusing to me. I see 3.596 million shares short as of mid February, actually a higher number than were short in mid-July (3.154 million with the price at 84.06). And this number is actually higher than it was in mid-December (2.77 million shares with stock at 15.5). So there are many others who have analyzed the situation, heard the spin and the company's position, and shorted the stock down here with me. I don't really like to be insulting, but some of you really leave no choice. There are people reading this thread who are actually trying to make decisions based upon meaningful information. You got me going when you say things like "the stock is going to 50 by June- July" or whatever, with no substantiation. I take offense, because I believe people who follow your lead are going to be hurt. I will try to be less insulting if you will try to post something that has any relevance. I don't try to get personal, but when I see shameless cheerleading and promotion going counter to the unfolding news, I come alive. Good luck to everyone.