No, please do tell me exactly what those studies have in common, with citations.
You asked for something that isn't rumor and second hand stories. I provided. Now you move the goalposts and ask for my single best story. Please clarify your behavior and your motivations in engaging in this discussion: Do you actually wish to process data that is contrary to your belief on how the world functions?
Who says we need massive governmental spending in healthcare? Why governmental healthcare authorities of course! I'm skeptical, especially when the specific examples provided don't match up with the rhetoric.
Also the burden would not even be that people die from lack of healthcare in the US, it would be that more people die from lack of healthcare in the US than people die from healthcare rationing in the UK. He's a case of someone who actually died from that[0].
Can you cite specific studies, their specific researchers, and their specific funding grants?
"Also the burden would not even be that people die from lack of healthcare in the US, it would be that more people die from lack of healthcare in the US than people die from healthcare rationing in the UK"
This is not what you claimed. Please clarify the contradiction between your statements.
"I live and work in rural US and suddenly I can afford a lot more than I could if I had one of those jobs I found after an internet search for London" does not pass the bar you expect other people's evidence to. Not by a long shot.
For example, can he buy a typical hip surgery, which over time is likely? CLL treatments? Medical transport should it be necessary? Hire a nurse? Get a broken limb in a cast?
... Not lose a job because they cannot get to it for a month because of bum leg?
Cost of each of these can be actually checked ahead of time, for UK and for US. Including a split between in network vs out network in the US.
If people are dying, we can count deaths due to causes that would be preventable in UK and in the US, as well as cost in each case.
I can tell you rural Kazakhstan can pay 5 times more than the same job in US. But without giving you details it will seem like an exaggeration or flat out lie. It's not, just a cherry picked example.
If a study comes up with figures that don't have particular names attached (data protection and all that) then unless you have some evidence to disprove it we can take it at face value. Fighting it with empty hands and generic unverifiable counterarguments feels like trying to save face.
"Who?"
"This guy tweeted about it"
"I'm going to need more than that"
"Here is a study where they claim it happens in aggregate"
"Who died specifically and what were the circumstances of that death"
"PEOPLE ARE DYING"
pretty much how this debate goes every single time
On one hand you talk about London (very specific), on the other it's "rural US" (97% of US!). Nothing about the actual job or its conditions, what you looked at to compare, etc.
I mean it's absurd to discredit a study with sources and actual figures but try to pretend your claim looks like anything more than an impulse comment.
There was a program, they didn't use it until the end, he was going to die anyway. He did not die due to lack of medical care.
I'm not going to go through each one, give me your best example.
>??? There are studies that directly show that not having insurance is deadly.
Also that tobacco doesn't cause cancer, guess what those studies have in common?