Why should Senate control not be considered 60 votes, if that is what is needed to accomplish the legislation in question?

I think, because, in theory at least[1], simple majority in Senate is all that you should need to pass a bill. To the best of my understanding, 60 is just for being filibuster-proof.

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...

I agree with your characterization. I supposed we will see more support of getting rid of filibusters via “nuclear option” as the bipartisanship gets less and less likely.