MrMarcello
In a well-ordered universe...
Based on some poll. When it came to vote, the choice was between a candidate who was a synonym of M4A, and another who strongly opposed it. The one who opposed it won convincingly. So, while a majority (or even a supermajority) of Dem voters support it, for most of them it is not a big deal, as was shown by Bernie losing again.
Anyway, I support some form of M4A *, and I think that it is a disgrace that the US is the only developed country that does not have some version of it. But I think it is a lost battle, when half of Dem congressmen, 80% or so of Dem senators, and the Dem president (who promised to veto it, and won the election based on Obamacare++, against M4A) oppose it. What is this vote supposed to achieve in the first place?
* There are many versions of M4A, each with its pros and cons. The dogmatic belief that it is Bernie's plan or bust is stupid. Switzerland has a totally private health sector and it seems to work well. Germany has many public insurance companies and many private ones at the same time and it works well. Italy has state-owned health sector and it is a disaster, while people seem to be happy with a similar one in the UK. The important part is that every person in the US should have affordable health-care, not the religious ideology of totally state-owned healthcare.
I think that's a good option. When I'm not on active military status, usually on duty 6-10 months per year, I can buy Tricare Reserve Select at ~$50/month for single coverage. If I had dependents the cost would be in the low $200/m. My dental plan costs about $12/m and my life insurance is $25/m for $400K. The medical plan is a very good plan that beats out practically all open market plans. While it would be nice to have free healthcare every day, and I do when on active duty order, it may not be feasible in this country.