Potentially, yes? Especially if it's a long-standing complex problem. History is full of oversold simple solutions. Hearing "just do .." should immediately alert you to the possibility that the speaker hasn't understood your situation.
Of course, history is also full of people insisting, "No, hold on, it's far more complicated than that!" and then being totally wrong.
For instance, people spent a very long time believing that a difficult-to-model combination of many different factors produced stomach ulcers. Then an experiment was done, and voila, the real cause was Helicobacter pylori.
Simplicity (or, in fact, regularization) is helpful far more often than it's harmful.
Also the policy / solutions promoters need to be asked and need to answer the questions:
1) what are the trade-offs
2) what are the potential unintended consequences
3) what happens if the boundary conditions are approached like 60 years later, very few people do X, many people do X
I would say that it would depend. I'm primarily thinking of big picture political questions, and in that general area I feel that simple answers are mostly flawed answers.
However, in engineering, I apply the *nix philosophy of less is more. But this post isn't very technical.
Would you be averse to it just because it is simple?