The fact that the Obamacare bill probably contains an error that might shut down subsidies for federal exchanges sorta backs up Steel's criticism.

Not entirely. If you read the lower court ruling [0] you'll see that the argument made against allowing the subsidies is pretty tortured. You have to read the statute in the most literal and least interpretive way possible to think that the original intent of congress was to bar subsidies for states that opted not to set up exchanges. But hey who knows. SCOTUS season isn't until June. As it applies to NN, it is perhaps appropriate to note the different processes the ACA when through compared to whatever regulations the FCC ends up adopting. We shall see.

[0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1673339.html

An "error" that only exists in the most tendentious possible reading of the bill isn't evidence of anything other than the intent of the people challenging the ACA.

A loophole that allows funding for health care to be cut sounds more like a "feature" to congresspersons.

> "700 regulations and no one has even read it!"

Note the commenter said no one had "seen it". That's a meaningful difference worth accurately re-quoting.

Also, is it "700" or "70" or "70+" or what? [citation required]

> "No one — not one single member of Congress — has read the bill" Michael Steel was using in 2009

The concept of passing laws that few have read or understood is the very definition of "disconcerting".