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: Raptor who wrote (1263)	3/7/1998 1:52:00 PM
From: Tony van Werkhooven	Respond to of 2068

Raptor- welcome back- good to see that you are in fine form! <G> Tony

To: Raptor who wrote (1263)	3/7/1998 4:38:00 PM
From: Premier	Respond to of 2068

Raptor: Thanks. People do have different points of view and different reference points. We should learn to respect everyone. We do not have to get involved in personal accusations. The market is ultimate arbiter here. If your analysis is meaningful, I will bookmark your profile otherwise ignore your posts. Since you have addressed me as a friend, I have a suggestion for you. You may benefit from lessons in behavior modification. You may want to check Dale Carnegie courses. Thanks and best regards. Premier

To: Raptor who wrote (1263)	3/7/1998 5:22:00 PM
From: DRRISK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2068

Rapper, Your haughtiness is only dwarfed by your naivete. "continued blather from the doctor about which market maker is doing what to whom. You seem to be showing a real trend toward objectivity." If you believe that the action of MM's or the action after the close, on a stock like OXHP are not relevant then let me be the first to affirm your stupidity. The fact that market movers like a MLCO or a GSCO effect stocks is a well known fact of life. Your journalistic skills are fine when it comes to your profession but clearly you can not believe your own stories or we would get a better response as to your strategy on this stock then what you have posted. Clearly you have a position other then being a pessimistic poster. I watch the action of certain stocks tick by tick and think that the info that one can gleen from "reading the tape" is the most objective that can be had. You on the other hand seem to believe that refuting facts is far better then interpreting them. If you think that every contribution you read is irrelevant then you are clearly anxious about your own unknown position. I have noted that shorters who post always get most anxious prior to changes in sentiment. They then cast doubt on every post that refutes their beloved opinion and hurl invectives and insults where ever the opportunity emerges. I ask you again what is your position and what is your strategy on OXHP? Simple question, No? DrRisk

To: Raptor who wrote (1263)	3/11/1998 10:00:00 PM
From: Raptor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2068

Missed a few days there, but glad to see we've been busy since.....I'm not seeing quite as much after hours trading analysis today as yesterday.....must have been a little butter on those fingers that were "tightly holding" the shares yesterday...but look, I'm not here to handicap daily activity... Soemeone mentioned recently that they thought Medicare was a profitable business, and why would Oxford de-emphasize it? Interesting story, that Medicare. It's basically another version of the old government bait and switch, health care style. A few years back, when the US realized that Medicare spending, fueled by unfavorable demographics, would be spiraling forever upwards, they hatched a plan to enroll seniors in HMOs. In order to induce the HMOs to market to seniors, the US agreed to pay HMOs 95% of the average cost of treating Medicare patients under the existing system. The theory being, of course, that HMOs could more efficiently dispense the care when given their systems and methods and such to reduce the costs, and therefore make a profit even while saving the US money. A win win all around. Well, the HMOs mostly rushed in and indeed were making money in the early days of Medicare, but over time two things have happened, one natural, the other man-made. We are discovering that after the initial surge of senior sign-ups, it has become increasingly difficult to grow Medicare rolls, as seniors seem to be reluctant to change, after the 'early adopters' if you will. This means, the old people in the HMOs are getting older as a group, and at that age, each year brings more problems and higher costs at a greater rate than any other demo group! So do the HMOs get some price increases to offset this bracket creep? NO!! Enter the government, who now says they will pay 90% of the average costs existing previously!! This is how the government saves money on health care. In addition, marketing to Medicare patients is tough, in the trenches, one by one selling. Not very efficient. This is why HMOs don't like the Medicare business. The problem is, you can't just sell your Medicare business or walk away. But by no means is the Medicare business so critical to Oxford that it can cause a big problem by itself. Oh no, they have plenty of problems in the commercial side as well, contrary to what I sense some here believe. After all, you don't run a combined ratio of 115% (4th qtr numbers- 95% med loss ratio plus 20% admin costs) unless you've got broad based problems, like, er, maybe your computer systems don't work or something? By the way, it IS indeed an Oracle system that has been so wonderful to Oxford. Gee, I think I'll short ORCL after they report their "good" February quarter soon. That's another company with some problems. But that's another story. Have a nice evening.