There are bills in the House (H.R. 676) and Senate (S.1804), proposed by Democrats, under the banner of "Medicare for All." These bills, if passed would provide Medicare coverage to every "non-elderly" person (the elderly are covered under Medicaid) in the US, without regard to citizenship status. Let me put it into plain language why this would wreck 1) every citizen, 2) the federal government, 3) the healthcare industry and 4) the economy as a whole.

According the The Urban Institute (no right-wingers allowed there), they released a report, The Sanders Single-Payer Health Care Plan.

These are the highlights of their report:

Federal spending will increase about $3.6 Billion a year. This is Table 1 on page 4, "Increase in federal spending ($billions), 2017-2026, $32,003.5" That's $32 Trillion over ten years, or $3.2 Trillion a year.

The entire Federal budget right now is $4.1 Trillion to give you an idea how much the federal spending will increase.

The last bullet point on page 3 reads thusly:

Analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicates that Sanders’s revenue proposals, intended to finance all new health and nonhealth spending, would raise $15.3 trillion in revenue over 2017 to 2026. This amount is approximately $16.6 trillion less than the increased federal cost of his health care plan estimated here. The discrepancy suggests that to fully finance the Sanders approach, additional sources of revenue would have to be identified; that is, the proposed taxes are much too low to fully finance the plan.

Now, the "additional revenue" (that will only be about 45% of what is needed) is made up by:

From the top of page 6: ...[The Sanders Campaign] propose a 2.2 percent income-based premium on households, a 6.2 percent payroll tax imposed on employers, additional revenues from revisions to the estate tax, increases in taxes on capital gains and dividends, new limits on deductions for high-income taxpayers, and increases in income taxes that largely affect high-income people. They anticipate that low-income individuals would save because the amounts they would be required to pay in new taxes would be less than what they are required to pay today in premiums, cost sharing, and other tax payments.

Similarly, employers that now provide coverage would pay less because their obligations under the proposed approach would be limited to the 6.2 percent payroll tax paid by employers. In contrast, across all employers (i.e., including those who offer health insurance and those who do not), employer-paid premiums for health insurance benefits currently average 8.3 percent of total compensation. Higher-income individuals would be expected to pay considerably more toward health expenses than they do today. [Emphasis mine]

So, it's more "soak the rich," but what happens if the rich leave? Seriously, what happens if Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, The Koch Brothers and all the rest of "the rich" get tired of this crap and just take the cash they have in the bank, leave the country and live overseas?

This is a math issue. "Medicare for All" will almost double federal spending. The proposed tax increases will cover half of that. Our current federal government annual deficit is $800 Billion. That's how much we borrow on the "good faith and credit" on the United States, every year. If we were to start this, without any additional taxes or cuts, that annual deficit would jump to $2.4 Trillion a year. Not gonna happen, no way, no how. Our debtors would stop buying our bonds (that's how we borrow money) that day. The federal government would not be able to pay it's bills and it would collapse, likely bringing the entire US economy with it.

The only way I see this happening is we have to increase taxes more and cut payments to providers. That is the only way to bring this into balance.

Here's something you may not know, Medicare only pays between 60% to 75% of what private insurance pays. Let's say my disabled son (who is on Medicare) and I go to our PCP for an exam, get some blood work done, etc. If, between my co-pay and my private insurance pays the doctor $100 for my visit, the doctor only gets between $60 and $75, for the same services. In essence, my visit makes my son's visit profitable for him.

Serious question time: would you have an average of $85 per visit (($100 + $70)/2), or $70 since we would both be on Medicare?

That would be, assuming that the reimbursement rates would be the same. If the federal government was the only payer in town, what would you do if they decided to cut the rates? Go from $70 a visit to $40? If the doctor wanted to stay in business, he would take cash and not Medicare.

What will you do if you have no money because your taxes doubled to pay for Medicare, but your doctor won't accept Medicare? You die, killed by the Democrats.

Since Obamacare became the laws of the land, I have been saying "Obamacare was designed from the start to be a clusterfuck of Biblical proportions. It is so bad, once it is fully in place and people see just how bad it truly is, they will clamor for anything that's not Obamacare. And that's when Single-Payer will be rolled out."

We are now at that point.

Today, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will introduce this bill to the Senate, "The Medicare for All Act." The good news is, 2/3rds of Democrats realize that they are dead politically if the co-sponsor this bill. Those who are on the record as co-sponsors are Tammy BALDWIN (D-WI),Richard BLUMENTHAL (D-CT), Cory BOOKER (D-NJ), Al FRANKEN (D-MI), Kirsten GILLIBRAND (D-NY), Kamala HARRIS (D-CA), Martin HEINRICH (D-NM), Mazie HIRONO (D-HI), Patrick LEAHY (D-VT), Mr. Edward MARKEY (D-MA), Jeff MERKLEY (D-OR), Brian SCHATZ (D-HI), Tom UDALL (D-NM), Elizabeth WARREN (D-MA), Sheldon WHITEHOUSE (D-RI).

Would you like to know the unfortunate truth? You know, those pesky things called facts about what will most likely be the consequences if this (or some version) becomes law? We only have to look as far as Senator Sanders home state of Vermont and his own words.

From Sanders' own mouth,

“But I think what we understand,” Sanders said. “Is that unless we change the funding system and the control mechanism in this country to do that. For example, if we expanded Medicaid [to] everybody. Give everybody a Medicaid card – we would be spending such an astronomical sum of money that, you know, we would bankrupt the nation.” [emphasis mine]

From the Wall Street Journal article, The Single-Payer Siren Song (it's behind a paywall, but the important part is right there) where Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin was actively looking at a Single-payer system for his state. He abandoned the idea in 2014 when he realized there would have to be an additional 11.5% payroll tax, plus raising the income tax by up to 9.5%.

In my personal case, if my income was divested of my healthcare deductions, then the payroll tax and income taxes were added, my bi-weekly take-home pay would probably drop about $125 a check because the taxes are more than what I'm paying now. Someone making say $15/hour without benefits, their paycheck would DROP at least $350 a paycheck. Considering they were only bringing home $2,185 before, that just got cut to $1,817 for two weeks at your "living wage."

And, of course, costs and prices would skyrocket because Medicaid only pays providers 80% of what private insurance pays them. Just as an economic survival factor, providers will have to raise their prices to Medicaid by 20% to not take a pay cut. Or, no longer accept Medicaid insurance.

Just as a thought exercise, what do you think would happen if "BernieCare" became law of the land and everyone got a Medicaid card, but no doctors would accept it?

Every time you disconnect the cost of a good or service from the price paid by the consumer for that good or service, prices go up because nobody really cares what the prices are because they don't have to pay for it. It's "free" to them.

Prices come down when the consumer has a choice and price shops. Why should I pay $100 for a service at Dr. A when Dr. B offers the same service and quality for $80? We see that every day because millions of people go to Amazon to buy stuff and not the store down the street because the price of goods on Amazon are cheaper and delivered to your door.

What we need are prices at a doctor's office up on the wall like they are at McDonald's. You walk in and see what an office visit costs, how much for lab testing, and all the way down the line. We can then look on the insurance company's website and see how much they pay for those services. You go to the provider, get the service, get the bill to show what services you received. You then send it off to the insurance company and they reimburse you. Because you price shopped, you can either pay or pocket the difference.

It would take 18-24 months for everything to stabilize, but I can be reasonably sure that prices will come down. Why? Because the consumer can decide if the price is worth the cost. Remember, the cost is what you pay in cash, the price is what you have to do (work overtime, sell things, skimp on other things, etc.) to acquire that amount of cash. If a family member comes down with cancer or other serious condition, the family makes the decision on how much care (if any) the member gets. If the treatment for a cancer diagnosis will cost the family $20,000 (Because it will cost $100,000 and the insurance will only pay $80,000), which would grant the sick member with a 20% to live more than a year, what would you do? The choices are simple, destroy the families finances and more than likely die in a year or two, or pass on sooner.

Yes, choices like that are upsetting. They are not easy and you will live with regret either way. Today we see cases where people will demand insurance companies pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend the life of someone by a few weeks or months. Is this cost-effective? Say we have a finite pool of money (because, you know, we do). We can use this money to either extend the life of person A by 6 months, or extend the life of person B 20 years. Or, how about extending the lives of 20 people (B through U) by one year? If you were a family member of A, what would you choose?

What upsets me is Liberals screaming "PEOPLE WILL DIE WITHOUT HEALTHCARE!!!!1!!!!!111" I hate to tell them this, people die every day, sometimes with the best healthcare on the planet. Medicine can only delay what is inevitable for all of us. In fact, medical errors in the US account for over 250,000 deaths annually, third in number after heart disease and cancer.

Think about it. Most of the time, medical care only treats the symptoms of the illness until the body itself can repair the damage. If you get a cold, the doctor tells you to buy stuff that will stop the runny nose, body aches, diarrhea, vomiting and so on so you can not feel so bad and can function until your body kills off whatever is making you sick. For emergency care, say you gash your arm or get a compound fracture on your leg, the medical professionals who treat you will only stop the bleeding, keep you breathing and prevent infection until your body can repair itself. People die only because the body cannot repair the damage or illness happening to it.

I know this stuff is hard. No one wants to make these kind of choices. That being said, we all make choices daily that have lasting effects. They have to be made because we can't have "everything all the time." To think so is to not live in reality.

Imagine this scene for a moment:

Stan is riding down the street with his new-found friend Chris. They’re both passengers in a flatbed tow truck. Chris’ car is on the bed, Stan’s car on the hook behind the truck. You see, Stan plowed into Chris and his car because Stan wasn’t paying attention while driving. They pull into the parking lot of a State Farm office. Stan goes inside and meets Bill, one of the insurance agents.

Stan: I’d like to buy some car insurance. I have my car outside.
Bill: Great! Let’s go out and take a look at it!
[Outside]
Stan: Here’s my car. (the one with no front end)
Bill: ...Umm, you want us to insure this?
Stan: Yes. I need to get it fixed and on the road as soon as possible. And fix Chris’ car as well since I hit him. Does the insurance include a rental option while my car is in the shop?
Bill: I cannot insure this car. It’s already wrecked!
Stan: So it has pre-existing damage. So what? Are you going to sell me a policy or not?
Bill: No. Go away.
Stan: But-
Bill: Go. Away. Now.

I’m sure you can see the absurdity in the above story and think Stan is an idiot for trying a stunt like this. Ballsy, but stupid.

So why do people expect they can get a health insurance policy after they get a Stage 2 Pancreatic Cancer diagnosis or some other serious and/or expensive-to-treat medical condition?

The business model of Insurance is all about a pool of shared risk. The "pool" is all of their policy holders. The cost of Bad Things is spread throughout the entire pool, on the assumption that not everyone will suffer a catastrophic (and expensive) life event. Insurance companies use actuarial tables as a basis on how much to charge for premiums.

Actuarial tables, for example, looks at 10,000 white males, 20 to 30-years-old and sees that as a group, (these are made up numbers) 3% will develop cancer, 5% will suffer a serious injury from a vehicle crash, 8% will suffer a dismemberment due to workplace accidents and so on.

Each of these events have an associated cost for them. The insurance agency will then use this information (chance of an event and the cost) to determine how much to charge (along with administrative costs and profits) for the premiums.

The insurance model breaks down when pre-existing conditions (PEC) enter the picture. This is because with PEC's there is no chance that the person might get a particular disease, they already have it.

Right now, a “simple and easy” cancer diagnosis runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars to cure. Serious cases can cost way more than that. How can you reasonably ask an insurance company to take on something like that? It would be like you buying a $200,000 house for $200,000, knowing that it will take another $250,000 of materials and labor to repair it and make it worth $200,000 because it’s currently falling down from disrepair or some other major issue.

I am not a “heartless Republican” (I’m not even a Republican at all, but that’s beside the point), so I am flexible on this. If people are very up-in-arms over those people with PEC’s, we can talk about a healthcare entitlement program, run by the government. Let’s just not call it insurance, because at that point, it’s not.

Instead of forcing everyone under the same umbrella (“share the risk”) with those who have PEC’s, those who have insurance can pay the market price for insurance without worrying about the insurance company raising their rates astronomically because they have to take on the PEC “money pit” people. If you fall into the PEC category, then you will get your healthcare from the government.

Hey, the federal government is *only* $20,000,000,000,000 in debt right now anyway. What’s a few more trillion dollars to the rest of us and our children?

Do PEC’s suck? Unbelievably. I realize that. First-hand experience and all that. I emphasize with you. It isn’t fair that you have this condition. But is it fair that you are asking everybody else in your insurance pool to pay an extra $10 a month for your condition? If you didn’t have a PEC, would you voluntarily pay an extra $50 a month in insurance premiums to support those that do have PEC’s? I realize that we will eventually pay it, either through insurance premiums or taxes, however forcing insurance companies to shoulder the cost of those with PEC’s only forces the insurance companies to go out of business and put hundreds of people out of work because people with PEC’s broke the model.

Yeah, that’s the ticket! Let’s drive those E-V-I-L insurance companies out of business! Then we can go back to the old medical model of “cash, one payment, up-front.” Yeah, those were the good old days. If you couldn’t afford the doctors services, you died. (I’m being sarcastic here, for those who have no sense of humor.)

I am not in favor of anybody being refused healthcare. I am for us doing so in a fiscally reasonable manner, one that does not unnecessarily burden our fellow citizens and future generations.

I found this the other day: Obamacare Travesty: IRS Fines Employers For Reimbursing Workers.

Let me put this bluntly. The plans offered by the "Affordable Care Act" suck. Very, very badly. The least offensive plan I was looking at cost $61 a month. That's just the premium. Then there is the $5,000 deductible before the plan pays anything. When the plan does start paying, it only pays 50%. Put simply, I have to spend $5,700+ during the year, about $477 a month before the plan pays a penny.

I don't have $477 to spend a month. After the "survival bills" (house note, utilities, food, transportation) I have less than $400 a month for things like clothes, gas for the car and such.

Now, let's say the company I work for wants to "help me out" so they reimburse some of my health care costs. B-I-G mistake. Under new regulations set forth by the IRS (Not Congress), employers can be fined $100 a day, per employee if they reimburse their employees to help them with their health care costs. That adds up to the princely sum of $36,500 a year, per employee. Now, if a company over 50 employees doesn't offer any health care plan, it's only $2,000 a year per employee. That $36,500 penalty doesn't care if you have one or one thousand employees. Of course, that is more than most of those being helped make. Even one such fine could crush a small business, driving them out of business and making all of the employees unemployed.

I have to ask you, what kind of people feel the need to crush a business if they do not obey a regulation with no legislative oversight? This is not part of the law known as the "Affordable Care Act." This is a regulation devised, written and enforced by the IRS. Congress, the Supreme Court or another agency didn't tell them to write and enforce this regulation. I have no evidence the President told them to do this either. They just thought it would be a great idea to drive companies who want to help take care of their employees out of business.

This is no longer a government "of the People, by the People and for the People." This is now officially a government of "f*ck the People."

Every one of the miniature wargaming systems I have played, at one time or another (some constantly) has an "RAW/RAI" argument. These stand for "Rules As Written" versus "Rules As Intended."

There are specific places where RAW and RAI go. They also have different objectives. There are also "rules lawyers" who attempt to break down each individual phrase, with the intent of "it doesn't say I can't, so that must mean I can."

Also, the written word is very powerful. When each word has an agreed upon meaning, there must be only that meaning for that word. There may be other words with a similar meaning, however that does not make the two words equal in meaning.

Looking at my current primary miniatures game, Battletech, the RAI gives the history of the Battletech Universe and what each of the rulesets do. There are currently four core fulebooks, with a fifth due out "soon-ish." Each of these tomes gives detailed rules on how to do what.

The Constitution is also very similar. There is the "RAI" area, namely the preamble where the reason and the goals of the Constitution is laid out in very broad terms.

...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity...

Then we have the Rules As Written, like Article 1, Section 9, 3rd paragraph:

No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

This passage means that no small, specific group(s) of the People shall be targeted for punishment or profit and no law can effect the Actions of the people that were committed before the law was passed. If you know the definitions of "bill of attainder" and "ex post facto," the meaning of that part of the Constitution is clear.

I can think of several instances where this law was violated, the first one coming to mind was the Domestic Violence Act which was passed in the 90's. It stripped anyone convicted of any domestic violence charge of their Second Amendment rights, including misdeameanor convictions, even if the conviction was years before this law passed and all obligations have been fully discharged. The bill of attainder example is one where several years ago Washington wanted to punish bankers on Wall Street, so they passed a law of a 90% tax on any bonuses that was structured and worded in such a way that the law only affected less than 100 people nationwide, all of them on Wall Street.

Now we have the SCOTUS ruling in King v Burwell, over this part of the IRS Code:

(2) (a) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, [...] Bolded is mine

So, the law is quite clear, it quite clearly reads for each State that has a health care market individual to the State. By the way, Johnathan Gruber, the principal writer of this monstrosity, has clearly stated on multiple occasions that it was written this way to force the States into using the exchange. We have the authors words, and his voiced concurrence to cement his intent.

Today, SCOTUS rules that, "Those are what the words say, but that is not what they mean."

Mr. Roberts (I will from now on have great difficulty using the word "Justice" with his name) wrote in the Majority opinion:

The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well. Pp. 15–19.

To tell you the truth, I don't give a running rats ass what they meant. This is what they said, and the law should be appliled as they said. If that is not what they meant, then Congress should change the law so it says that they meant.

I've tried to relate before using an analogy how health care in this country works. Here it is again, because this is very relevant to the article I found.

You have a village of say, 1,000 people. The village has 1,000 acres of land to feed the people. The population is pretty stable. Everyone is happy. Then, along come 100 more people. Refugees, migrants, it doesn't matter. All of a sudden there are more people than the land can support. There is no way to increase the usable farmland quickly enough to support the sudden population growth.

In a situation like this, so there are only two options of action. In the first option, the villagers drive off the newcomers until the population is again reduced to a level the land can support. Or, the villagers can welcome the newcomers and everyone cuts back on the amount of food they eat. Essentially, the entire population slowly starves until the weakest die off and the population stabilizes again.

For those of you who don't get analogies, the village people are the people who pay for medical insurance. The food is the doctors and the additional people are the uninsured. A doctor can see only so many patients a week. That is a finite number and there is no way around it. If you increase the demand (the number of patients) then the percentage of those actually seen will go down. Or, everybody will receive less "face time" with the doctor, thus reducing their quality of care. It's simple math and there is no way to get around it. It is currently taking about 10 years of time and at over $250,000 in cash to turn a person into a doctor.

The number of licensed physicians in the United States is growing, just not as fast as the demand for their services. We are already at a deficit of available care and it's only going to get worse. And it only gets worse from there. The article I found, Over 214,000 Doctors Opt Out of Obamacare Exchanges lays this out pretty clearly. The article talks about how the "Affordable Care Act" pays significantly less than even Medicare. For every $1.00 private insurance pays out (for a given test, procedure, office visit, whatever), Medicare pays 80 cents and ACA plans pay about 60 cents. Think about that for a minute. You provide a service, and you normally charge $100 for this service. Your overall costs for delivering this service is about $75. Tom doesn't have a problem with what you charged, and pays you the full $100. Dick is a tightwad, and only pays you $80. You still turned a profit, but you would have to start going the "quantity vs. quality" route to make a profit you could live on. Providing your service to Harry is mandated by the government, and they only pay you $60 for that service that costs you $75 and Tom is happy to pay you $100 for.

What would you do? Medical offices are a business. Most offices today staff multiple doctors because you need nurses, medical technicians, lab staff, staff to perform the transcription into the medical records and insurance specialists to make sure the information is submitted to the proper insurance agency, in the proper form and in a timely manner. So doctors combine their services to share the administrative burden. No wonder almost 25% of doctors are not participating in ACA plans. To jump back to our original analogy, let's say those 100 extra people were "more expensive" food-wise than the original 1,000 villagers. Where the original villagers were at a "one acre feeds one person" ratio, these new people need 1.25 acres to feed one person. This only exacerbates the food shortage if the new people are accepted into the village. The second part of the article is even more chilling than the "below cost" payments.

An MGMA study indicates that 75% of ACA patients that had seen doctors had chosen plans with high deductibles. Given that most of the patients are low-income, doctors are concerned that the patients cannot meet the deductibles and they will get stuck with the bill.   ...HHS requires that insurers cover customers for an additional 90 days after they have stopped paying their premiums: the insurer covers the first 30 - but, it's up to the doctor to recoup payment for the last 60 days. This is the number one reason providers are opting to not participate in the exchange plans. Currently, about a million people have failed to pay their premiums and had their plans canceled.

So, these doctors face probably higher costs in the services provided to those with ACA plans, they get paid less than what it costs them, and they will likely have to perform a lot of services "unreimbursed," because it won't be free. I looked into an ACA plan to cover my wife and I when I was laid off back in February. I was receiving $247 a week, or just over $1,000 a month in unemployment. That money paid for what the food stamps didn't cover, utilities, Internet (so I could do job searching), a car payment/gas/insurance so I could make it to interviews and so on. Let's just say I had a lot of month left at the end of the money. If I wanted health coverage, I would have had to pay almost $225 a month just for the premiums, and the plan didn't shell out a penny until I racked up at least $5,300 per person. Um, yeah. That didn't fly. There was no way I could afford the premiums, let alone the out-of-pocket expenses. No wonder 70% of the physicians in California have not signed up with Covered California. If you're one of those "don't bring a problem to me unless you have an idea on how to solve it" crowd, here are my suggestions on how to lessen this.

• Make health insurance portable. Health insurance being provided by the employer as a benefit started in WWII, when wage controls limited how much people could be paid. As an extra incentive, employers started offering retirement and health insurance benefits to "sweeten the pot." You need to be able to buy it on the open market so you can keep the same plan from job to job.
• Make health insurance nationwide. Currently, health plans are limited by state borders. If you can take your health plan with you no matter where you travel across the country, this would help with costs because it would increase competition.
• Limit liability. Limiting the level of liability (otherwise known as Tort Reform) to gross negligence or "reasonably foreseeable" circumstances. Leaving a sponge or forceps in you during an operation is gross negligence. Suing a doctor because your loved one was seriously handicapped or died because of a condition that only five people in the world have ever had it is not "reasonably foreseeable." Medicine is an art, not a science. Scientific methods are used to narrow down what is wrong with you, however it really comes down to the doctor's level of experience and treating your symptoms until the body heals itself. Diagnosis is trial and error at its best. Limiting liability will lower the doctors costs on that pesky insurance, and they can pass the savings on to you.
• Diversify the medical professionals. When you go to your Primary Care Physician's office today, you expect, nay demand, to see THE DOCTOR, no matter what is wrong with you. A medical office is like a Naval Battle Group. You have an Aircraft Carrier in the middle (the doctor), which is surrounded by smaller ships that support the Carrier. The Carrier does not need to be involved in the hunting down of submarines, that's what the Frigates and Destroyers are there for. If you have the sniffles, it would be way more cost effective for you to be examined by a Paramedic, who would diagnose you, then take it to a Physicians Assistant or the doctor themselves for any prescription needed. A doctor, two PA's and four or six Paramedics would provide almost the same level of care to three to four times the patients and a lower cost. You should not see the doctor unless there is something significantly wrong with you.

Regulating the insurance companies on how little they will be paid, then demand how much they will pay out is the best way to ruin them. Which, considering who (as a group) is running this country right now, just might be the object of the exercise.

I found a video on YouTube of a Congressional hearing. I have the video below. What it boils down to is, it says in the programming code for the healthcare.gov website (I'm not sure if a user actually sees this or not) that the user "has no expectation of privacy."

This means the Federal government cannot obey its own laws on HIPPA security. Working with medical records in my last employment, HIPPA awareness was drilled into me morning, noon and night. The company faced substantial financial penalties from the state, not to mention probable litigation from the members whose data was violated, if there was an inadvertent exposure of medical records. Coupled with the fact that some of the programmers for that website were Belorussian State-controlled programmers, I refuse to let any of my personal data near that website. Here is the video: