Four weeks. No sick days part of the four weeks. None but I can afford to support her while she is home with our daughter for as long as they need. None besides about 5 job offers in my inbox per day.

You're privileged enough to be in the right industry in the right location, with the right skill sets and experience, at the right time. If things were different you'd get no holidays, no job security, etc. I know people in tech on the east coast of the US who struggle to get two weeks leave and struggle to change jobs. Four weeks is something the rest of the world just takes for granted. I also know people that have been bankrupted because of health costs, this was my uncle who was a millionaire and had the best insurance money could buy. His wife got cancer, they fought the insurance company, sold the business and the car collection and houses, she died, he went bankrupt. It was very sad.

I used to work in the bay area but ultimately decided to come home. Here in NZ in the tech industry I earn a couple of hundred thousand which is admittedly less than I'd learn in the US but while things like employment protection aren't important to me right now I also take comfort by the fact that if I get hit by a car ACC will cover my loss of income and rehabilitation, I simply don't have to worry about getting sick or injured. I also take comfort by the fact that everyone, be it a barista or a barrister, has the same perks (like four weeks paid leave, sick leave) and protection that I do.

Another example: a company I worked for in NZ was a US multinational, they did a big restructure where they laid off thousands. Because of employment law most of the lay offs were people in the US, South America, and Asia. Europe and New Zealand were almost completely unscathed, it was just easier.

On one hand you ask for exact names of people who have gone through unfortunate health or medical bills related moments but on the other hand you compare esoteric "identical jobs" with no consistency or transparency. One in London which barely pays for an apartment in a tenement building, public transport, and nothing else. The other is in "rural US", pays double, you can afford a house, 2 cars, and to support your whole family by yourself, and a whole list of other benefits (some unusual for the US).

Are they really the same job? Are the 2 salaries/conditions representative of the job or you just got lucky? Are they actually identical (what happens if you're sick for 6 months?)? Are the salaries that you could find published on the internet representative for London? What's "rural" US? Are you working from home for a big company or do you have to be on site? If you have to work in your town/suburb what other career opportunities are available for you and your family there compared to London? You may be happy with your salary now but if there's no room to grow, or you have no choice if you lose you job/company goes bust, then it's not quite ideal.

I understand you may not want to provide details about your personal life but as it stands you have anecdotal evidence that may or may not be based on flawed data (cherry picked examples or low quality information), while everyone else supported their claims with actual links.

Just in case: I'm not British, nor do I live there.