<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Around the Web &#8211; January 3rd, 2010</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/</link>
	<description>Human evolution, genetics, genomics and their interstices</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 00:28:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: anondoc</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56462</link>
		<dc:creator>anondoc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 06:02:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56462</guid>
		<description>Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote, but the AMA does not have control over individual physician licensing at all.   That is handled by the states, who also license osteopaths, NP&#039;s, CRNA&#039;s, etc.  One can become a licensed, practicing allopathic physician without ever joining or supporting the AMA.  The AMA is one of the sponsoring organizations for the Liaision Committee on Medical Education, the organization that accredits medical schools, so in that capacity it does possesss non-exclusive input into issues of overall physician supply (although much less at the level of distribution of trainees into individual specialties).

Insurance does not just give docs everything that we want.  In my limited experience, the negotiations over rates are heavily tilted in the insurers&#039; favor whether they be public or private, and in the last few years the main issues up for discussion have been how much we will be cut and from where and what new hoops we and the patients will have to jump through to secure reimbursement.  I should add that reimbursement from some public payors (especially variants of Medicaid) doesn&#039;t even always cover office costs, particularly for evaluation and management specialties.  Private insurance reimbursement rates are often pegged to Medicare rates, and so we essentially never set our own fees.  Nearly the only people ever faced with paying the full hospital and physician charges are the uninsured, and even many of them can bargain if they are savvy since most providers recognize the risk that that &quot;self-pay&quot; will turn into &quot;no pay&quot; which frankly happens a lot.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote, but the AMA does not have control over individual physician licensing at all.   That is handled by the states, who also license osteopaths, NP&#8217;s, CRNA&#8217;s, etc.  One can become a licensed, practicing allopathic physician without ever joining or supporting the AMA.  The AMA is one of the sponsoring organizations for the Liaision Committee on Medical Education, the organization that accredits medical schools, so in that capacity it does possesss non-exclusive input into issues of overall physician supply (although much less at the level of distribution of trainees into individual specialties).</p>
<p>Insurance does not just give docs everything that we want.  In my limited experience, the negotiations over rates are heavily tilted in the insurers&#8217; favor whether they be public or private, and in the last few years the main issues up for discussion have been how much we will be cut and from where and what new hoops we and the patients will have to jump through to secure reimbursement.  I should add that reimbursement from some public payors (especially variants of Medicaid) doesn&#8217;t even always cover office costs, particularly for evaluation and management specialties.  Private insurance reimbursement rates are often pegged to Medicare rates, and so we essentially never set our own fees.  Nearly the only people ever faced with paying the full hospital and physician charges are the uninsured, and even many of them can bargain if they are savvy since most providers recognize the risk that that &#8220;self-pay&#8221; will turn into &#8220;no pay&#8221; which frankly happens a lot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Razib Khan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56458</link>
		<dc:creator>Razib Khan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 04:23:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56458</guid>
		<description>hispanics have latino too. but no, they want brown as well. and la raza.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hispanics have latino too. but no, they want brown as well. and la raza.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trajan23</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56457</link>
		<dc:creator>trajan23</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 04:18:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56457</guid>
		<description>Zachary Latif: &quot;I was reflecting on the word Brown though; it doesn’t only mean Desi brown but Latin Brown too.&quot;

I&#039;ve pointed out that problem out on this  blog a time or two before. Lamentably, Hispanics, in defiance of typological realities (Indians being, on a per capita basis, darker complected than Hispanics) seem to have seized the onomastic high ground on this one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Zachary Latif: &#8220;I was reflecting on the word Brown though; it doesn’t only mean Desi brown but Latin Brown too.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve pointed out that problem out on this  blog a time or two before. Lamentably, Hispanics, in defiance of typological realities (Indians being, on a per capita basis, darker complected than Hispanics) seem to have seized the onomastic high ground on this one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Zachary Latif</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56451</link>
		<dc:creator>Zachary Latif</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 23:36:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56451</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the kind comments. I like the League of odd-brownz, with you as its Rabbi-Pope. You&#039;ve even taken to deciding who is kosher or not. I look forward to Brown Pundits and envision it as congregation of the league.

I was reflecting on the word Brown though; it doesn&#039;t only mean Desi brown but Latin Brown too.

That might actually be more relevant to an American audience because both the US and UK are browning albeit differently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the kind comments. I like the League of odd-brownz, with you as its Rabbi-Pope. You&#8217;ve even taken to deciding who is kosher or not. I look forward to Brown Pundits and envision it as congregation of the league.</p>
<p>I was reflecting on the word Brown though; it doesn&#8217;t only mean Desi brown but Latin Brown too.</p>
<p>That might actually be more relevant to an American audience because both the US and UK are browning albeit differently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56450</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 23:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56450</guid>
		<description>On the ice age, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epica-vostok-grip-40kyr.png  , the warming looks like it started around 25kyA, and temperatures were pretty flat before that anyway.  Also, I kind of wonder how many data points the population increase for the relevant 20,000 years is based on in the first place and whether they&#039;re counting neanderthals as part of the human population.

That said, plenty of technological improvements do seem to date from about that time, but one wonders why they happened then and not earlier.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the ice age, from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epica-vostok-grip-40kyr.png" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epica-vostok-grip-40kyr.png</a>  , the warming looks like it started around 25kyA, and temperatures were pretty flat before that anyway.  Also, I kind of wonder how many data points the population increase for the relevant 20,000 years is based on in the first place and whether they&#8217;re counting neanderthals as part of the human population.</p>
<p>That said, plenty of technological improvements do seem to date from about that time, but one wonders why they happened then and not earlier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Bri</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56447</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Bri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56447</guid>
		<description>Okay, I just read the brain size article too. Hmm. Sounds dumb. They pick the largest ever modern humans, and then say that since the modern average human is smaller, that brain size has decreased. I&#039;d guess if you went to Norway or Sweden today, picked out a few dozen 6&#039;5&quot; giants and measured their brains you&#039;d find them just as large as Cro-Magnon&#039;s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, I just read the brain size article too. Hmm. Sounds dumb. They pick the largest ever modern humans, and then say that since the modern average human is smaller, that brain size has decreased. I&#8217;d guess if you went to Norway or Sweden today, picked out a few dozen 6&#8217;5&#8243; giants and measured their brains you&#8217;d find them just as large as Cro-Magnon&#8217;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Razib Khan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56444</link>
		<dc:creator>Razib Khan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56444</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;. But what was going on during the 20,000 years before that? Gradual, worldwide technological improvements?&lt;/i&gt;

yes. that&#039;s what the archaeology seems to suggest.

&lt;i&gt;You’re just not going to let the scissors thing go, are you? &lt;/i&gt;

prolly not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>. But what was going on during the 20,000 years before that? Gradual, worldwide technological improvements?</i></p>
<p>yes. that&#8217;s what the archaeology seems to suggest.</p>
<p><i>You’re just not going to let the scissors thing go, are you? </i></p>
<p>prolly not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Bri</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56443</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Bri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 22:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56443</guid>
		<description>Ray, the ice age was intensifying, not weakening during 10,000 years of that period. When it melted, it melted quite suddenly. It wasn&#039;t as much of a gradual lessening of the ice age as a sudden shift of climate. The chart slopes more sharply upward at about the 5000 BC mark, several thousand years after the end of the ice age, not right at the end. The gradual slope holds steadily upward, ignoring the climate for several thousand years.

I am wondering about the productivity of the areas just south of the ice. Pretty high I&#039;d guess. It was cold, but the actual level of solar energy was just as high as it is today at the same latitude.  Summers might have been pretty nice, if the wind wasn&#039;t from the north.

A steadily rising population does not suggest a simple Malthusian model.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ray, the ice age was intensifying, not weakening during 10,000 years of that period. When it melted, it melted quite suddenly. It wasn&#8217;t as much of a gradual lessening of the ice age as a sudden shift of climate. The chart slopes more sharply upward at about the 5000 BC mark, several thousand years after the end of the ice age, not right at the end. The gradual slope holds steadily upward, ignoring the climate for several thousand years.</p>
<p>I am wondering about the productivity of the areas just south of the ice. Pretty high I&#8217;d guess. It was cold, but the actual level of solar energy was just as high as it is today at the same latitude.  Summers might have been pretty nice, if the wind wasn&#8217;t from the north.</p>
<p>A steadily rising population does not suggest a simple Malthusian model.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ray</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56441</link>
		<dc:creator>Ray</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:03:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56441</guid>
		<description>&quot;6000 years or so ago in both the new and old worlds agriculture was raising populations. No mystery there. But what was going on during the 20,000 years before that?&quot;

End of the ice-age?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;6000 years or so ago in both the new and old worlds agriculture was raising populations. No mystery there. But what was going on during the 20,000 years before that?&#8221;</p>
<p>End of the ice-age?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Bri</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56439</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Bri</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:39:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56439</guid>
		<description>Re the rise in population. I am more interested in the gentle rise in population between 30,000 BC and about 5000 BC. Interesting. All the major continents were occupied by at least 12,000 years ago. (There should be a blip showing the New World occupation, but maybe the data isn&#039;t fine grained enough for this.) But even under hunter-gatherer conditions and the ice age, a rise in population is clear. 

6000 years or so ago in both the new and old worlds agriculture was raising populations. No mystery there. But what was going on during the 20,000 years before that? Gradual, worldwide technological improvements? Expansion of humans into more marginal habitats as they develop technologies that allow them to thrive? This is a Cornucopian chart, not a Malthusian.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re the rise in population. I am more interested in the gentle rise in population between 30,000 BC and about 5000 BC. Interesting. All the major continents were occupied by at least 12,000 years ago. (There should be a blip showing the New World occupation, but maybe the data isn&#8217;t fine grained enough for this.) But even under hunter-gatherer conditions and the ice age, a rise in population is clear. </p>
<p>6000 years or so ago in both the new and old worlds agriculture was raising populations. No mystery there. But what was going on during the 20,000 years before that? Gradual, worldwide technological improvements? Expansion of humans into more marginal habitats as they develop technologies that allow them to thrive? This is a Cornucopian chart, not a Malthusian.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EcoPhysioMichelle</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/01/around-the-web-january-3rd-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-56434</link>
		<dc:creator>EcoPhysioMichelle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=8831#comment-56434</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re just not going to let the scissors thing go, are you? ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re just not going to let the scissors thing go, are you? <img src='http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk

Served from: blogs.discovermagazine.com @ 2012-05-26 02:21:49 -->
