Reason's why - Facts not fiction - The R's are proudly and admitidly the party of 'NO" in spite of the logic.

*Health care costs are rising, and private insurance companies are contributing to this, not mitigating these expenses.
*Lots' of efficiencies stand to be implemented and mandated to reduce overall health care expenditures.  *There are lots of examples of this.  I will gladly provide examples and documentation to support this.
*We are the only industrialized country in the world that doesn't provide all of our citizens with health care.
*The costs incurred by the uninsured ultimately are paid for by the insured.  Where's the logic in that?
*Minimal expenses (such as a few cents for an antibiotic) can ultimately save thousands of dollars in expenditures after the problem has further manifested itself.
*In my opinion, from the research I have done and the input of others knowledgeable in this area, there is no defensible argument against the constitutionality of the health care reforms.  At best, this is a very fine point of law and the extremists that are making this argument are not well versed enough in the law to intelligently make this argument.  The majority of constitutional scholars do not agree with this position. 
*The essence of "The Party of No" 's argument against health care reform is that it was done by the *Democrats.  They admittedly want Obama fail, even on issues they may agree with.  The want to make the Democrats look as inept as possible by forcing extreme partisanship and then unreasonably clamming that the Dem's are responsible for inaction.
*A large percentage of American's are traditionally short sighted and are easily influenced by negative lobbying by extremists groups.  Social Security and Medicare are examples of this.  These socialist programs are vigorously and unreasonably protected by the same people who argue against health care reforms.  Forty percent of Americans favor the health care reforms, which is the largest percentage of those polled (40% in favor, 20% disapprove, 25% unsure, 15% other).  Those are approximations from memory but I can document this data for anyone who doubts these numbers.
*The insurance companies have a vested, self serving interest in fighting some of these reforms, but will ultimately benefit from other aspects, such as the mandate for universal coverage.
I would love for someone to comment with an argument against any of these statements.