Democrats would not be able to bring a vote without 60 votes, or without using the nuclear option to rid the filibuster.

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.

Let's get a vote in the House to see where everyone actually stands. My point is that the Democrat majority seems to be against Medicare for All, and I want to see it in a vote.

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...