High numbers of Americans remain opposed to the ObamaCare medical reform -- as they have been ever since Democrats passed it and President Barack Obama signed it into law in 2010.

An early February Rasmussen Reports survey found that 54 percent of likely voters polled favored repealing ObamaCare, compared with only 41 percent who opposed repeal.

There are many good reasons to dislike ObamaCare -- perhaps the main one being that it unconstitutionally forces Americans to buy government-approved medical insurance or pay hefty fines.

In a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, two-thirds of those polled had a negative view of that so-called "individual mandate" -- and of the fine that comes with not purchasing Washington-approved insurance.

But another sound reason for viewing ObamaCare unfavorably is its sheer complexity. It runs longer than 1,000 pages, and thousands more pages of regulations are being written to implement it. That creates enormous potential for unintended medical and economic consequences for millions of Americans.

And so it was deeply ironic when the Obama administration recently declared that private health plans will be required to issue extremely simple explanations of what the plans cover. The benefit summaries will not be allowed to exceed six pages, nor to have any fine print.

"Feds to require health plans that are understandable," a headline in the Times Free Press read.

But if Congress and the administration are determined to dictate the sort of medical insurance we must have -- and want insurers to write health plan summaries that are simple and understandable -- couldn't they set an example by writing a law that is simple and understandable?