For any industry, there has to be at least some good news any time Congress votes to expand the market by tens of millions of customers.

But the business world found plenty to complain about Sunday, as it assessed the House bill that would make sweeping changes in the health care system and extend insurance coverage to millions more Americans.

Insurers do not like the provision to create a new government-run insurance program. Drug makers oppose the nearly $140 billion in rebates to the government and Medicare recipients over 10 years. Makers of artificial hips, heart defibrillators and other medical devices are not particularly happy about the proposed 2.5 percent tax on their products.

And employers large and small oppose rules that, for many of them, would make health care coverage — long a job benefit — become a federally mandated obligation.

That is why, as attention now shifts to the Senate, where Democratic leaders are trying to merge two bills into one, virtually every business group with a stake in the outcome will be hoping to strike at least a slightly better deal than they have with the House version.

And yet, many analysts said Sunday that even the House bill was not as bad for business as many in the health care industry might have feared when the overhaul effort began many months ago.

“All industries stand to gain from this legislation,” Steve Findlay, senior health policy analyst with Consumers Union in Washington. “They’re going to continue to fight their narrow issues and get the best that they can get. But all of them are aware they stand to gain significant new business and new revenue streams as more Americans get health coverage and money flows into the system for them.”

Erik Gordon, a business professor and industry analyst at the University of Michigan, said insurers would find it difficult to price their new risks but might not be hurt too much by the competition — considering how many new customers they would have.

Of course, new revenue streams apply only to companies in the business of selling medical goods and services. To employers required to provide worker health benefits or, in many cases, pay some sort of financial penalty, the House legislation offers little to cheer about.

Employer groups complained on Sunday that the House bill would impose insurance obligations while doing little to rein in the medical costs that help drive premiums higher year after year.