So your statement "The Democrats couldn't get a majority of their party" is true because 67% is not a majority? Who taught you math?
Malpractice reform: Malpractice accounts for ~30 billion. Assuming we can cut that down to 0 we've saved almost 2%, but a 2% that will shrink over time as other costs rise. While helpful, it's not a long term solution.
Cross-state insurance: A logistical nightmare for insurance companies - it's not like people are going to travel from New York to North Dakota to visit their doctor so the insurance company has to expand their network to the entire country. It might increase competition (if enough companies went for it), similar to how the new health care exchanges have been working.
"Cost control" is great as long as it's not just "we're going to lower coverage as rates go up". That's sort of the opposite of helping people.
You know what things people love and are very popular? Covering pre-existing conditions, students stay on their parents insurance, no life time caps. Problem is you can't just include those things if people can just get insurance as soon as they get sick - hence the insurance mandate.
Going back to lowering costs - when we cover comprehensive, then people can stay healthy and get care when it's cheap. Catastrophic health care is much more expensive. I'd much rather my health insurance gave grandma $20 for a flu shot than $20,000 for a hospital stay. It's a more long term solution to lowering costs that is needed.
It's weird how some people don't think we should provide health care to our citizens now in the modern world. Pretty much all the other first world countries do and they have much cheaper health care costs with much healthier citizens.