I started digging again through the Democrats' health care reform bill, and I keep finding things that I'm sure will cause people to furrow their brow and ask for a repeat.

None of this is really electric stuff, but it confirms the thought that this bill is filled lots of different subjects, that we are just barely scratching the surface of what it does in the current health care debate.

So let's go through a few more pages of this plan.

Section 1306 of the bill would waive all deductibles for Colorectal cancer screening tests, "regardless of coding, subsequent diagnosis, or ancillary tissue removal."

There's no explanation given for why this one test would receive such special treatment, but I would bet there are lawmakers who are attuned to this one medical issue who might have pushed it.

The only other specific cancer issue that is mentioned in the bill is prostate cancer, which on page 492 is listed as a specific item that's part of "Medicare Covered Preventive Services."

And ladies, no, there is not one mention of breast cancer in this bill.

Another specific-area-of-concern thing might be at work in Section 1232, which gives extended coverage for "immunosuppressive drugs for kidney transplant patients."

It also gets a mention under that save list of Medicare covered services, as "Kidney disease education."

The reason I raise those is because it just seems like they got special treatment in this bill. Maybe I'm wrong, but with no mentions of words like breast, brain, liver, stomach and more, it at least deserves a second look.

How about the title of Section 1705 for some good government language, "Expanded Outstationing."

This basically makes it easier for people to apply for help from the government at "DSH" hospitals - Disproportionate Share Hospitals, which get money from the feds and states to treat indigent patients.

Section 1712 would drop the "Tobacco Cessation Exclusion From Covered Outpatient Drugs."

That would make tobacco cessation counseling a covered benefit for pregnant women, according to one review of this bill.

Medicare began covering some of these type services in 2005.

Finally, let's talk about the government exempting some of its operations from certain laws, in this case the Paperwork Reduction Act, which has a self-explanatory title.

This bill has one specific exemption from that law, in Section 1221 on "Ensuring Effective Communication in Medicare."

I will let you come up with some quick one-liners on how an excessive amount of paperwork might not ensure effective communication.

Remember, you can download the bill yourself at http://bit.ly/nSL2A 

As we work through the details of these bills, I keep getting complaints about my effort to see what's in these, in other words an accusation of media bias against the Democrats and President Obama.

One person was especially aggravated at my blog about Section 2002, which had a special budgetary exemption, so that certain costs were not counted on budget.

"I love the idea of just not "counting" things in the budget Bush and Reagan did it all the time, especially with defense spending to their friends like Haliburton and KBR etc.," wrote Jacob.

"Please direct me to the coverage you did of that where you read every page and parsed it for us in those Reagan and W. Bush budgets, I can't seem to find that coverage," he added for good measure.

Happy to help you with that, Jacob.

The biggest reason I can do more of these stories now is the internet. When I started covering Congress in the 1980s, I would spend lots of time reading through bills and all the specifics.

Too bad I didn't have a blog then, but I sure did a lot of stories about pork barrel spending.

Now as for Jacob's complaint about targeting Obama and not a GOP President. How about September of last year, when this blog was one of the first to get the Wall Street Bailout bill on line?

Or maybe a big chunk of earmarks approved by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President last year?

What about the text of the mortgage bailout plan from the Bush White House, which had the infamous language in Section 8, where no acts of the federal government could be reviewed by any court?

You could find all of those in the archives.

Just remember, from my vantage point, it doesn't matter who is in charge, because the money being spent isn't any different.