Only greedy insurance companies and the conservative politicians in bed with them are against health care reform. Simple as that.
Depends on how you define "reform".
HR 3200, which is the bill in question, is not "Reform" in my opinion. I'm against it on many different grounds including:
1. The plan really has no clue on how it's really going to pay for itself so there's really no control over expenses.
2. The "public option" will (not might, will) lead to many companies dumping their expensive private insurance programs to let people pick up on the "public option". This in turn will lead to the government having a great deal of power over what gets covered by said insurance.
History has shown that when the government is paying for something it's rarely what any objective person would say "is best for society as a whole" but rather which special interest groups are loudest and most influential with the right politicians.
3. Moving from a system that is paid for by the people who use it to a system in which the costs are paid for by one group and the users include people of a separate group is likely to lead to an unhappy ending. As a general principle, I think there should be a financial connection between what programs a citizen supports and that citizen. It's easy to support "universal healthcare" for instance if, like 40% of the American adult population, you pay no net federal taxes.
4. Presently, there are 40 million people in the US who don't have insurance. If you take away illegal immigrants, people who are switching jobs, people who make over $65,000 a year, and people who qualify for Medicaid but haven't signed up you're left with 10 million people. It seems a bit hasty to redo the whole system for 10 million people who are mostly people with pre-existing conditions and as a result can't reasonably afford healthcare.
5. HR 3200, the actual bill again, does little to curb the actual problems in the United States with its health care such as the fact that the government limits private competition by not allowing insurance companies to compete in every state which greatly limits competition.
It also does nothing to eliminate the plethora of ridiculous requirements that various state governments have already mandated that private insurance companies must cover which drives up the cost. A 25 year old looking for catastrophic insurance should not be forced to pay for insurance that covers, amongst other things, psychological therapy, propecia (hair growth), lasik, and any other number of things that different states have inserted due to the lobbying of special interests.
The one good thing about this stuff being state by state I guess is that the crapola that gets inserted into health insurance is on a per state basis. Wait until the federal government starts to get going and soon catastrophic insurance begins to have to cover all kinds of items that most people would consider non-catastrophic.
HR 3200 also does nothing for tort reform which is a major driver of costs. We Americans love to sue people. Not just medical but everywhere. Heck, we're a software company and 2% of our budget is dedicated to legal fees because there's always "something" to deal with. Americans love to take people to court, especially doctors.
6. HR 3200 and people in general have not addressed the #1 reason Americans pay so much for health insurance. It's not mainly, like conservatives say, due to lawyers (though it's an issue) and it's not mainly due, like liberals say, due to greedy insurance companies. The main reason is that Americans culturally are in love with medical treatment. In the US, we will spare no expense to get an extra 3 months. 2/3rds of our medical expenses occur in the last 6 months of life. No other country is like this and it's not just because socialistic governments won't allow it. Europeans and Canadians in particular do not culturally embrace the idea of living at all costs.
I'm not saying either culture is right or wrong on that. What I am saying is that Americans fundamentally believe that medical technology will save them.
Lastly:
HR 3200, the actual bill, is not that similar to the UK system or the Canadian system. Debating the pros and cons of Britain's system or Canada's system is academically interesting but not very relevant to what is actually put together.
