Tom Reed says he's now read HR 3200, the healthcare reform bill, and he still doesn't like it.
The Star-Gazette report on Reed's decision doesn't say what he didn't like about the bill. It will be interesting to see if Reed can come up with specifics. Most of the critique we've been hearing from the right is straw man arguments. The bill is not single-payer or "socialized medicine", so all the Canadian and British comparisons are off-the-mark, for example.
I'd sincerely like to have someone like Reed, who's a lawyer, come up with some sensible, sane objections to the bill. Or, if he thinks that the bill is a wrong approach entirely, what's the right approach? And how will his approach deal with a middle class that's increasingly unable to afford insurance, and is denied insurance by private insurers?