Kamala Harris once supported eliminating private health insurance.

It seems our esteemed Vice President Kamala Harris has been playing a game of musical chairs with her health care policies. One minute she’s ready to toss your beloved private insurance into the political dumpster, and the next, she’s backpedaling faster than a cyclist who just realized they’re heading the wrong way in the Tour de France. But fear not, dear readers! We’re here to untangle this web of flip-flops and give you the cold, hard facts about what “Kamalacare” might mean for your wallet and your well-being.

The Evolution of Harris’s Health Care Stance

Kamala Harris’s journey on health care reform has been a roller coaster ride. Initially, she was a staunch supporter of Medicare for All, co-sponsoring Bernie Sanders’ bill in 2017. Her early rhetoric was unequivocal:

“Here, I’ll break some news. I intend to co-sponsor the Medicare-for-all bill, because it’s just the right thing to do.” – Kamala Harris

Calling for Medicare for All, Kamala Harris says of private insurance: ”Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on.” pic.twitter.com/xT2I5IZDfT

— Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) January 29, 2019

However, as the political winds shifted, so did Harris’s stance. By 2019, she had proposed a detailed health care plan that included a 10-year transition to Medicare for All while allowing private insurers to offer Medicare Advantage-style coverage. This softening of her position was likely an attempt to appeal to a broader base, but it left many wondering where she truly stands.

The $30 Trillion Question

The most eye-popping aspect of Harris’s health care proposals is the projected cost. Estimates suggest that implementing her plans could increase federal spending by over $30 trillion over ten years. That’s a number so large it makes even the most ardent big-government supporters pause.

“To replace the entire private system where companies provide health care for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time.”

While Harris argues that her plan would ultimately save money by eliminating inefficiencies and reducing administrative costs, critics contend that the financial burden on taxpayers would be unsustainable.

The Private Insurance Conundrum

One of the most contentious aspects of Harris’s health care vision has been her stance on private insurance. Her position has been, to put it mildly, fluid:

“Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care, and you don’t have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require. Who of us has not had that situation, where you’ve got to wait for approval, and the doctor says, well, I don’t know if your insurance company is going to cover this? Let’s eliminate all of that. Let’s move on.”

This statement, along with others, initially suggested Harris was in favor of eliminating private insurance entirely. However, she later clarified her position, stating that private insurance would still exist for supplemental coverage. This backtracking led to confusion and criticism from both sides of the political aisle.