As one would expect in a bill that is over two thousand pages long, there are a number of provisions stuffed in the new Senate health care bill that make me wonder about why they are in this legislation, and who put them in there.

My father, the now retired lobbyist, taught me many years ago that you could accomplish a lot in a bill by labeling something a "technical correction".

In other words, it would look technical to anyone who was not familiar with the provision, so they wouldn't ask too much about it.  But the change could be major.

There are six instances of "technical amendments" which are exactly that.  But the five "technical corrections" seem to involve a bit more.

"Effective as if included in the enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009," starts the first "correction" on page 442.

In other words, they didn't get this in the bill when it was passed, so now they are adjusting the amount of money that can be sent to the states for those families making 200 percent of the poverty line.

Also on page 443 is this: "Section 605 of CHIPRA is amended by striking "legal residents" and inserting "lawfully residing in the United States"."

I'm sure some people would consider that an interesting semantic change, eh?

On page 367, there is a small section about amending the laws dealing with Black Lung Benefits for coal miners.

A little research showed the language is part of a House bill filed by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), which would evidently affect new claims made after January 1, 2005.

There was no Black Lung provision in any of the other health care bills approved by various committees so far this year.

Here is one from page 857, "Special Rule for Power-Drive Wheelchairs" is the title of this subsection.

"For purposes of payment for power-driven wheelchairs, subclause (II) shall be applied by substituting '15 percent' and '6 percent' for '10 percent' and '7.5 percent', respectively" it says.

That's not in this bill by accident.  Power-driven wheelchairs also had a mention in the House-passed bill, but not with an increase in the amount that the federal government would pay for them.

And in the Senate bill on this same subject, how about this technical amendment:

"TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.--Section 1834(a)(7)(C)(ii)(II) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(7)(C)(ii)(II)) is amended by striking ''(A)(ii) or''."

I'm sure you understood that.