Your question is qualified enough to relate specifically to the bill listed by OP, but, again in theory, if the bill wasn't so off-putting that senators decided to filibuster, maybe it would pass.
In other words, 60 is not control; 60 is safety. 50+1 is control albeit minimal.
[1]https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-pr...
Incorrect. I was admonishing them for not putting it to a vote.
Which would burn a lot of political good will for no reason, considering the likelihood of how Sinema and Manchin would vote.
The point being that evidence points to Democrats by and large supporting taxpayer funded healthcare options. It specifically was removed in 2009 from ACA because of 1 senator from Connecticut.
It's not really fair to pin Lieberman's opposition to the public option or expanding Medicare as some personal opinion, he had previously supported expanding Medicare until he abruptly... got new orders? Seems like the the $930,000 in bribes he accepted from the health industry could have played a role:
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?c...
And the major force against universal healthcare, since FDR's Second Bill of Rights (right to health), has always been the AMA:
https://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/12/ama_opposition_to_oba...
The reality is that Democrats, as a bloc, are the only ones to have even attempted taxpayer funded healthcare, and somewhat succeeded. Just because a couple people who label themselves Democrats, but do not vote with them does not make sense to blame Democrats as a whole for holding back progress in taxpayer funded healthcare, and ignore the 50 Republicans voting against it.
This is all ignoring the fact that in the context of taxpayer funded healthcare, you need 60 votes to do anything, so the measure for “control” of the Senate would be 60 votes.