Very good sentences

by on June 30, 2014 at 2:16 pm in Data Source, Economics, Medicine | Permalink

If savings for cross-sectional out-of-pocket nursing home expense risk were held in the form of vehicles, it is large enough to account for the entire stock of transportation equipment in the United States.

That prize goes to Karen A. Kopecky and Tatyana Koreshkova.  That paper was just published in American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics as well.

1 david June 30, 2014 at 2:41 pm

vehicles are getting cheaper to manufacture via automation, but elder care remains labour-intensive. so the cost schedules had to cross eventually

2 dearieme June 30, 2014 at 2:49 pm

Nooooo. It’s a lousy sentence. For starters, it should read “it would be large enough …”. Moreover it seems to introduce the idea of an out-of-pocket nursing home but I’ll bet that’s not what’s meant – the structure of the sentence is a muddle. I dare say “the entire stock of transportation equipment” means “all the vehicles”: twelve syllables doing the work of five. Et bloody cetera.

It’s incompetent, jargon-ridden rubbish: if an undergraduate had submitted it to me I’d have torn it up and chucked it back at him.

3 CM June 30, 2014 at 3:19 pm

+1. The quoted sentence is a coma inducing bore.

4 david June 30, 2014 at 3:27 pm

surely ‘transportation equipment’ includes things which are not vehicles – are railway tracks and signals vehicles?

5 John Hall June 30, 2014 at 4:11 pm

I’m with CM.

6 The Other Jim June 30, 2014 at 6:49 pm

Who knows? They don’t say. Another reason it’s a lousy sentence.

7 cfh June 30, 2014 at 4:36 pm

Lighten up, dearieme, TC marks on a curve.

8 guest June 30, 2014 at 10:13 pm

maybe where you are from, but TC works at a fourth tier university, for him the fact that the sentence is properly capitalized is a majestic achievement.

9 Floccina July 10, 2014 at 12:57 pm

I am sure Tyler is referring to the idea expressed not the lousy structure, but you know that which begs the question why didn’t your sentences make that clear.

10 Chris June 30, 2014 at 3:19 pm

It’s Kopecky with an “o”.

11 Naj June 30, 2014 at 3:46 pm

Medicaid is going to shoulder huge long-term care burdens in the coming years. People don’t have enough saved; don’t buy private insurance, don’t have as many kids (esp not living nearby) as they used to, and experience higher rates of divorce than previously.

The gray tsunami is going to screw us big time, at least us young folks.

12 HL June 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm

Well, on paper at least. In practical terms, I’d wager their standard of care will plummet before anybody lets them sink the ship,

13 JWatts June 30, 2014 at 4:09 pm

+1, the VA system.

14 Naj June 30, 2014 at 4:43 pm

Unfortunately, veterans are not a strong voting bloc.

15 Naj June 30, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Absolutely financing reforms need to be considered, and hopefully Congress has the courage to take up the issue before it’s too late.

I’d have to disagree about quality of care. If anything it has been improving, with more people now receiving care in their homes and the development of new outcome metrics.

Also, old people vote, so they wield considerable influence. I have no doubt politicians will be rewarded for continuing to cut education and infrastructure to pay for programs for the boomers.

16 HL June 30, 2014 at 5:24 pm

I guess I was thinking about when most of the boomers are gone. Maybe 30 years down the line. I don’t expect my generation (20-35) to vote in similar patterns as today’s and yesteryear’s elderly have.

I’m not confident the funding will be there. Thanks to immigration policy and to lower birthrates, a large percentage of people voting then may not have a vested interest in the health of a bunch of old white guys and gals.

But predicting the future is hard so who knows.

17 Brian Donohue June 30, 2014 at 6:25 pm

Not sure what you’re saying here. It may interest you to know that Baby Boomers used to have this saying: “Don’t trust anyone over 30.”

Now they are as crotchety and old-farty and graspy as any generation ever.

I predict that 30 years from now you will be crotchety and old-farty and graspy.

18 HL June 30, 2014 at 7:49 pm

Now they’re all “don’t trust fund anyone under 30” 🙂

19 Dick King July 1, 2014 at 8:53 am

Why do you expect the future elderly to vote differently from the past and present elderly when they become the current elderly?


20 HL July 1, 2014 at 12:02 pm

I’m admittedly shooting from the hip on these.

My theory is that there is more change between generations than is often perceived. While the boomers may still vote in large numbers, it may very well not be as much as prior generations. That one is verifiable with stats and I’ll try to research it at some point. Could be wrong about that, I have no idea.

Also, the overton window has shifted, so that a conservative voting block of olds would be less conservative than previous generations, despite still being labeled as conservative.

I’d posit that the younger generation is living a more atomized and individual life, with far less community responsibility and ethos than prior generations (even boomers). This will affect voting patterns in an unprecedented fashion. There is currently a large turnout gap between national and smaller elections, I expect this to grow further. The primaries between party officials are already how things are “shaken up” in washington, not so much in national elections. Expect a smaller amount of people deciding large differences in national policy through primary elections.

21 chuck martel June 30, 2014 at 11:21 pm

Congress and Courage? Never the twain shall meet.

22 Dismalist June 30, 2014 at 7:21 pm

My family has zero savings earmarked for nursing home care, on account the big black pill is cheaper, though we do have savings [strange, yes], and we have three vehicles [granted, not worth very much]. So for this family, the post constitutes the opposite of the truth. In any case, so what?

23 zbicyclist June 30, 2014 at 7:31 pm

It seems to me obvious that assisted suicide will be legalized in the next 20 years. The economic case would seem overwhelming.

24 carlospln June 30, 2014 at 7:52 pm

“The Smith & Wesson Solution”

25 Dismalist June 30, 2014 at 9:42 pm

The economic case is indeed overwhelming; ‘course this must remain strictly voluntary. If one kept the big black pill on hand, one wouldn’t need assistance! Anyway, what’s the penalty for unassisted suicide, death? 🙂

26 Virginia Postrel June 30, 2014 at 9:41 pm

Taken strictly as prose, it’s pretty awful. “Cross-sectional out-of-pocket nursing home expense risk” is nearly unreadable.

27 prior_approval July 1, 2014 at 1:44 am

Maybe in another 30 years, the United States will follow the German lead in this, much like it did by copying the socialist Bismarck’s pension system for workers 50 years after its introduction in the Kaiserreich – ‘Seit der Einführung der Pflegepflichtversicherung in Deutschland 1995 ist nach SGB XI jede Person mit Wohnsitz in Deutschland verpflichtet, neben dem Krankheitsrisiko auch das Pflegerisiko mit einer eigenen Versicherung abzusichern.’ (Somewhat loosely translated – ‘Since the introduction of nursing care insurance in 1995 in Germany, according to SGB XI, every person living in Germany is required to have insurance against the risk of nursing care, just like the requirement for health insurance.’)

Though who knows? As it is, it has taken 130 years – and counting – for the U.S. to provide the same level of health care to all its citizens as found in the socalist hellhole that Bismarck left Germany in.

28 Floccina July 10, 2014 at 1:02 pm

Mandating it does free you from paying for it. In fact it can increase cost as some families who could provide care themselves opt to use the nursing home.

29 Colin July 1, 2014 at 2:09 pm

In what language is that a good sentence? Because it certainly isn’t English.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: