[ewoodrich]

Yes, conflate healthcare policy (that in many ways is fundamentally different) with Homeland Security. I apologize for my sarcasm, but this just seems like knee jerk partisanship.

In addition, we are not a democracy (per se), but a constitutional republic, and as such, our elected representatives decide public policy. In the case of Obamacare, Democrats had been overwhelmingly elected the prior year (and Obama ran with healthcare reform as a campaign pledge). So, I don't quite see how it is "undemocratic" either.

[john_b]

I think the analogy is perfectly valid. Regardless of the goals of a policy, its implementation via bureaucracy can still be so hopelessly complicated that it's a net drain on society.

It reminds me of a quote I once heard, possibly by Ron Paul (though I am not sure), that went along the lines of "Politicians mention 'tax reform' all the time. But unless they're talking about simplifying the tax code, they're not talking about tax reform."

The DHS and Obamacare both tacked on additional rules to an already overcomplicated and opaque set of systems, rather than streamline the underlying systems and their interactions. Our political process makes adding bureaucratic complexity easier than removing it. For under-regulated areas (like anti-trust laws in the early 20th century), this can solve problems. But otherwise it's more likely to make the underlying problems worse.

[Retric]

Obamacare and DHS removed plenty of regulations streamlining many things. What people really complain about is regulating new things not the overall complexity.

[sybhn]

Don't jump to conclusion, both side of the establishment have been contributing to bloated bureaucracies, Obamacare is just one of the latest (and the one I last read of). My undemocatric comment was around bureaucracies in general, not obamacare specifically.