I think you may be “annoying the fuck” out of yourself here. Your reply is full of strawman arguments.

The comment I replied to asserts that the government incentive to reduce healthcare expenditures improves workplace safety, and consequently in the context of this article would have prevented silicosis/PMF in these patients.

I highly doubt most HN commenters are aware of whether undocumented migrants are covered in the Canadian system as they are in California, certainly the person I replied to was not, so I explain differences in coverage.

Consequently, the argument doesn’t hold water as the financial incentive for the government is stronger in California than in Canada as it relates to this study population.

> The metric "well, they don't provide it for undocumented persons" is a weird one, as is the use of California as a counter-example.

I'm not providing any counter examples, undocumented workers in California are the subjects in the article we are commenting on. Where in fact there happens to be socialized healthcare that you seem to think I'm arguing against.

All good, but you still had to get in the jibe about '"free" healthcare' for reasons that have nothing to do with either TFA or the GP's point.

It's not a gibe. I used scare quotes around free because it's obvious that a socialized system is funded by taxes, what's not obvious a bill is always generated during healthcare delivery in the Canadian system.

You yourself seem to not understand this distinction with your comment: "no charge at the point of service".

There is always a charge at the point of service and a bill is generated. The difference with the US is that the Canadian healthcare system, which also functions mostly privatized, uses a single payer model so the government is the only one legally permitted to pay for insured services. In other words, each province runs a large insurance company and there is a law that states that no one is allowed to charge any person or company other than the government insurance plan for anything the government has deemed reimbursable for any person covered by the plan.

(So you don't misinterpret my statements again: while government run hospitals, but not the physicians working in them, do get capitation payments they also bill for some services. What is billed vs paid through capitation varies by province. Services rendered to uninsured patients are never from capitation funds and are always charged directly to the patient).

If the services rendered or you are uninsured, like the patients in the article study, it functions the same as the US and you will personally receive a bill in the mail with similarly obscene rates much higher than what the government insurance company would have paid.

This distinction has everything to do with the article and GP's point which asserts that the Canadian government will bear some cost for the care of the patients in the California study which is flatly incorrect. If there was no charge at the point of service none of this would matter.

> There is always a charge at the point of service and a bill is generated.

I was thinking more broadly than just the US or Canada. In Scotland, for example, there is literally no charge at the point of service.

Okay... what does Scotland have to do with anything?

The discussion, and the part of my comment you quoted, is specifically about Canada and the US. So I'm not sure what you're even arguing or why.