Readers will see my point, I don't need to get into the weeds with you like this over minor details.

At least one reader certainly doesn't. You're asking everybody for evidence that could stand up even in court while you respond with anecdotal data and personal experience based on biased, incomplete, or generic data.

"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.

To make this anecdote into a data point the GP should post his whole financial history. E.g. how much they made and spent. What do they own and then we can also check what can they buy.

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.

No, he would have to say something just slightly more specific like: "rural means a suburb of City X". Or "I'm a programmer working remotely for a Fortune 500 company". Anything that can make the rest of the statement meaningful. I mean I understand not wanting to give out personal details but then don't bring it up if it's so generic.

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.

"People are dying due to lack of healthcare!"

"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

If you consider that study data bad so be it. But then accept that your data is equally bad at best. And I'm being generous here, you provided no "data" to speak of. No aggregate data, no study, not even a hint of specificity.

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.

Please clarify: What is your point? You asked for any evidence, and when provided, denied it as evidence, reiterated that you had always asked for specific evidence.

Nobody can seem to find a specific person who died due to lack of healthcare with anything more than a tweet to back it up. Lots of "almost" cases but no definitive deaths. Why do you think that is given you claim this is happening all day every day.