Which was worse? No Child Left Behind, or the Affordable Care Act?

Why should the education of the nation's school children be a state and local responsibility, creating 50 or more different standards of excellence? I realize that's how it's set up - to a point - but why would the nation's education be under federally oversight?

The insurance companies - which are still private industry - will never regulate themselves. The fact is, they are profiting hand over fist on made-up syndromes and designer prescription drugs. The ACA didn't regulate ANY of that. It only provided insurance for those who had none by creating a marketplace, did impose a controversial financial penalty for those who don't elect coverage (which is their choice) and protected students and anyone with a pre-existing condition.

I'm not against federal oversight. What I demand, though, is effective, streamlined, purposeful oversight.

I agree that both overstepped their bounds, but NCLB had more lasting effects and opens too many doors for federal control. ACA you know what to expect, but with NCLB it could only get worse.

@Oconnor: I agree with purposeful regulation on health care, but the federal government has no business in deciding what schools should teach and learn. That leads to fascism.

@Oconnor: I am not against federal oversight either but they don't do that, the tend to take over, and on top of that don't get results. Where education is successful it is not because of federal control or involvement. Government can probably provide the best educational solution just our of practicality but they don't and certainly don't do it any better than the states.