Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Healthcare Hypocrites
How do you spell "hypocrisy"?
Try this: "H-Y-P-O-C-O-N-G-R-E-S-S." The hypocongress consists of those Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who have risen up on their hind legs in recent weeks to snarl and howl at any mention of a government role in meeting America's health care needs. "Socialism," they bark — we won't allow Barack Obama and the liberals to create a Washington-run, big-government intrusion into the hallowed private market. Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, even pledged to fight so ferociously that the health care battle would be Obama's "Waterloo."
What a stand-up guy for free enterprise! What an ideologically correct appeal to laissez-faire principle! And, let me add, what a crock!
What these bellicose market-purists hope you don't discover is that they are closet socialists. As members of the congressional elite, they and their families are governmentally blessed with their very own gold-plated, taxpayer-financed, Washington-run health care system. And, they loooove it.
Theirs is such an effective system that not a single member of the hypocongress has been willing to give it up — even though they surely realize the political peril of being exposed as rank hypocrites for enjoying the very program they so adamantly reject for you.
Actually, they happily take a double dip in the soothing waters of public health care. First, they enroll their entire families in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program — and you probably would, too, if it were available to you, for it's the Rolls Royce of health plans.
For example, while even the best employer-provided health policies offer only one or two types of coverage, FEHBP is a Chinese menu, offering dozens of coverage choices that allow its lucky members to assemble a plan that meets their unique needs. Members also need not worry about being denied coverage because of some pre-existing condition — once sworn into office, lawmakers and their families are immediately and fully insured, with total access to a national network of doctors and hospitals.
But here's the sweetest part of their Rolls Royce ride: up to 75 percent of the premiums are paid for by taxpayers, many of whom are lucky if they can afford to buy an old Yugo-level of health coverage in the vaunted private market.
Well, snaps the hypocongress crowd, even if FEHBP is essentially government-paid insurance, at least it's not socialized medicine, with doctors working for the government — so, technically, we're still pure.
Ah, that raises the second bit of secret socialism that lawmakers have mandated for themselves.
Right under the Capitol dome, conveniently situated between the Senate and House chamber, is the Office of the Attending Physician. Inside are more than a dozen navy doctors, nurses, medical technicians, pharmacists and other health professionals, all employed by the government solely to attend to a select clientele: the 535 members of Congress.
Let's say that, after giving a fiery speech on the floor assailing the evils of government-run health care, a lawmaker gets gaseous or has a tongue cramp. He or she can pop right into the OAP for — yes! — some government-run health care. No appointment needed, no pesky insurance forms to fill out, no co-pay — just care.
For this, members pay a flat fee of $503 a year. A year! You and I are taxed to cover the real costs of this elite service. And that's not the end of public health benefits for lawmakers — if they need a specialist, an operation, therapy, rehab or other pricey procedure, it's all free at the government's Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval hospitals.
If it's good enough for them, why not us? The public deserves what the Congress has, and any member who opposes extending it to us should automatically be stripped of their privileges.
For a model of integrity, they might look to Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rep. Steve Kagen, D-Wis. — both of whom have rejected taking congressional coverage until everyone in America has coverage of equal quality. I don't think the noisy naysayers are looking for integrity, however — not as long as they can get away with their abominable hypocrisy.
- Posted in
71 Comments so far
Show AllWE all know this already Jim and frankly were all sick of hearing about it. The fact that most of the DC establishment are hypocrites is OLD news! Add to this list the millions of other Americans that also get taxpayer financed medical care and maybe that's not old news. Right now the biggest supplier of health care in this country is Gov't both to it's own employees and the pols that run Gov't and to various other groups. Millions also access free care through Gov't by showing up @ the Emergency room whenever they get sick because they have NO Ins. and under law they must not be turned away. ( this is not a bad thing) However, for us to go on pretending most of the health care in this country is Privately supplied is nonsense. I'd love to have a City, County or State job complete with in many cases Golden health Ins. but unless your politically connected where I live forget about that ever happening.
Does the fact that something is "old news" mean that it should be ignored or swept under the rug? Get serious!
"WE all know this already Jim and frankly were all sick of hearing about it."
Speak for yourself. It's the hypocrites who presumably represent us that I'm sick of hearing from. This is a current, hot issue, and I love this article. I have a dozen people I want to email it to.
Yes, Unless I eat Maalox, I can not open the monthly rags my US Senators e-mail to me. The BS is way too deep.
The emergency room care argument is a total sham. No emergency room will perform a needed heart bypass, administer chemotherapy, or any other life saving treatments for a slower moving death threat. It is long past time we started calling out those who proclaim that emergency room treatment somehow passes for proper medical care. I have been writing to my senators, congressperson, and President Obama every day reminding them that another 122 Americans died today because they could not pay for health care. I will send another 4 e-mails everyday to them until everyone who wishes to can go see a doctor free from interference from profit motivated sociopaths and the fear of financial ruin.
Define Freedom
Very well said. I have a brother who believes that anyone who needs be seen by a doctor can simply stroll into the emergency room and that charity care will pick up the bill. When I attempted to tell him basically the same thing that you had written he accused me of not engaging in critical thinking and of being a radical wild-eyed liberal, as if that were something that I was supposed to be ashamed of. But trying to speak coherently to extreme conservatives like my brother is like shouting into the wind.
All you get doing that is your own spit in your face.
I have two Nephews, one just like me, the other like your brother. I love them both, but never ever try to talk sense to people like your brother.
SEAGLASS;
Indeed, this is old news - very old news. Do you know why it is old news? Because it still hasn't been fixed.
The magnitude of this nation's political ignorance is exceeded only by its social pathologies.
Awesome piece, Jim. Thank you.
I think every sick American should go straight to the office of the attending physician and get some healthcare.
We've paid for it.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
As Jim Hightower notes, the Congress members in Washington have their choice of many different health care plans to choose from. But as T.R. Reid points out in his must-read book The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care, some countries like Germany and Japan have their choice of over hundreds of health care plans to choose from. Yet Obama and the Democrats refuse to seek the advise and help of other countries which have greatly benefited from employing Universal Health Care.
Here is the equation, ...
INSURANCE = SOCIALISM
Practically no person in the US can now pay for health care out of pocket save for anything beyond a cold. Thus, the free market paradigm does not work, cannot work, for medicine in the US. Society at large has to pay. The cost can be distributed by private insurance companies, or by the government. The principle is the same, from each according to his ability, or a fixed rate, and to each according to his needs.
Insurance, i.e. socialism, is becoming increasingly important in keeping capitalism functioning. Instead of socialism managed by the government, we have socialism managed by private insurance companies. Thus, we have health insurance, car insurance, and homeowners insurance. These are all forms of socialism, all necessary in our current system, and they're taking an increasing bite out of income.
The taxpayer pays a lot more by making people go to the emergency room for treatment.
No preventative medicine.
Yep, cost a lot more to do it the way we do it now, but the bill still gets paid.
Insurance is "socialized" healthcare financing but it is not "socialism," which is classically defines as state ownership of the means of production.
q
The right wing nut jobs think everything is "socialism" and "Obamacare".
Private insurance has absolutely NOTHING to do with socialism. You may as well say the Fortune 500 are all socialist organizations. If socialism is how capitalism is now kept functioning, why bother calling it capitalism at all? In your Bizzarroworld where up is down and black is white, capitalism and socialism are the same anyway, so why bother making a distinction?
Not Allan sez: "Instead of socialism managed by the government, we have socialism managed by private insurance companies."
***
There's a word for what you describe, and it's not 'socialism'.
You might even call it an 'F' word.
You seem to be making what I would consider to be an unwarranted assumption--that most health care is actually worth paying for.
Alas, the power to shame people by revealing them as hypocrites can now reasonably be pronounced dead. This conflict is about crude power, and accusations of hypocrisy against forces armed with huge wealth and a nuclear arsenal is an exercise in futility. That said, we all love Jim and his wit and moral clarity.
"Alas, the power to shame people by revealing them as hypocrites can now reasonably be pronounced dead."
I deem this line to be "Post of the Day!". katfish thank you for your thoughtful insight.
Yeah, Let's hear it for one upmanship!!!
Just in case you missed it Jim, according to all the reports Ive seen, Obama does not have the resolve for a public option any more than the Blue Dogs. In other words, Obama's idea of leadership is go along with the crowd. If a public option gets in the final Bill fine, if it is expunged from the final Bill, or morphs into a watered down Bill without bite, that is fine too.
You lost all credibility with me. Another apologist for the Obama presidency.
Bill Clinton said Obama has to pass a bill for he re-election efforst in 2012. Obama cannot fail, who cares what is in the bill. All about party!
Democrats, Republicans all lock step with "the party" so where is the surprise here? I do not see either part of our sham two party oligarchy caring much about the people in any case.
And here is an example of their Free Market at work:
Doctors start up dialysis units, first to serve their patients, and secondly to make money. A corporation buys out those units associated with doctors' groups and hospitals. The corp becomes "one of the biggest junk-rated borrowers this year" (2008, per Bloomberg) with some $3.7B in debt. In other words, this publicly traded company is paying big bucks in fees to create junk bonds to buy a monopoly in a critical healthcare service. But this company has some questionable business practices and has multiple investigations and even a Corporate Integrity Agreement on a previous entity. An arrangement that I found odd was that this publically traded company is obligated to buy its equipment from a private non-US company - it gets complicated. Anyway, point is, that almost all of the funds for this adventure in The Free Market come from you and me, aka the taxpayer.
Then Obama has the nerve to place a member of this company's board in the very agency that supposedly regulated this business, and will set how much Medicare pays for these services. Per the SEC filing: "The bundled payment rate will be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who will have discretion to determine the base payment rate based on the goods and services included in the bundled rate."
In other words, the existing Free Market is a maze of profittering based on exploiting government payments via a revolving door between government and industry.
The people need to own ALL the facilities associated with medicine.
We only pay for the doctors!
"...exploiting gov't payments via a revolving door between gov't and industry"
This does not sound like a free market at all. If we had a free market in health care, the FDA would not ban low cost effective treatments "...because patented pharmaceuticals can't compete" (see: pyridoxamine); Low cost effective treastments could be advertised as long as they have been demonstrated to be safe and made truthful claims; doctors would only lose their licenses for harm to patients and ethical violations rather than curing their patients with "unapproved" methods; everyone would pay cash for primary care, including setting up accounts for Medicaid recipients (wherever this happens, costs fall 30-50% and doctors make as much or more money). Probably other things I haven't thought about. Then a single payer system makes sense for major expenses.
I find it intersting that Mr. Hightower mentions Steve Kagen as one whom gave up his govt health care. Although I applaud the efforts of my representatives Mr. Kagen and Russ Feingold, it must be mentioned that Steve Kagen DOES NOT support HR676 or any sigle payer type of solution. He is an allergy doctor who runs a clinic in Green Bay WI and has a tremendous financial stake in rounding up hundreds, if not thousands of new patients and their money with a market/greed based solution. He does not want universal health care because it would force him to take a pay cut. Get used to it Steve, the hoi polloi have been taking pay and benefit cuts for years. Time for you essential professionals to catch down to us.
My father was a doctor who believed in patient care above profits and was under the knife from the system as a result. Maybe I can convince him to move to Richmond, VA and run for Eric Cantor's seat and put Kagan to shame. This nation is shamelessly filled with greedy doctors who side with the drug and insurance corporations shamelessly even when there are no sustainable benefits to doing so.
Thank you for stating the truth about the far too many greedy doctors.
Interesting point and well said.
Humorous but true. Even India has universal healthcare with some of the finest hospitals. Unfortunately, the government sector is often in bad shape and more people there are falling for turning to privatized care. I had a fierce discussion with my greedy relatives abroad about health care. They never get tired of arguing that the big insurance companies are somehow going to be the new saviors. They rail against government run health care and call Aetna, Blue Cross, Cigna, and others the "justice league". Nothing I can do to try to tell them that the health care system in the USA is completely broken gets into their thick skulls. They even have the nerve to blame my father not putting profit before patient care as the cause for his business not doing so well. Between the politicians and my spiteful relative who are both greedy and rich from crooked means, they both have universal coverage but can't stop shouting against it. Adolf Hitler would love them !
You made interesting comments.
The ghosts of Rand and Reagan are really stalking India. The Bollywood movies make India look like all it's citizens are as affluent as the Swiss. Yet, this is a country with a UNHDR ranking of 135! That's in the same league as Honduras, and a bit ahead of Haiti. Surely, one doesn't go a day anywhere in India without seeing deep poverty and having to deal with beggars, right? Are the well-off poeple that callous? And as the star-pupils of Central America show, neoliberalism will only accentuate the poverty of India. Only bottom-up socialism will ever bring the vast majority of Indian poeple a way out of grinding poverty.
And, the way of Gandhi is obsolete. Under the modern media propaganda model Gandhi today would be sitting in a prison cell, or maybe just ranting on a street corner, ignored and in obscurity - as all latter-day would-be Gandhi's and Dr. King's are - and I'm sure that are more than a few around the world right now.
I was an Indian, I would join the Naxalites.
Bollywood I totally despise but I came from South India. Most people are nowhere like that. The weather is too hot to dress so tight and trashy and then there's potential rapists everywhere. People are more cut throat just like the West but change has only gone so far. I haven't been to India in years but some time back, Sioux and I had a conversation about her trip to India and she has confirmed what I feared which is western capitalism making the poor poorer and the rich richer as if the regular caste system didn't do enough harm.
There are no true socialists in India. Most are the fake ones using the Christian and Muslim groups to play divide and conquer. Gandhi wouldn't be in a prison cell today in India although he would be in the US. That's not to say that politics isn't corrupt there either. They still use their old tricks of bait and switch. Before, candidates could bribe voters with free pots. Nowadays, it's TVs. In the end, nobody wins. Comparing the politics of India and the USA, in some ways the USA is more corrupt than India and vice versa.
Sioux Rose
RANJIT: When commondreams first opened the forum to comments, there was a very astute poster, an astute individual learned in many arenas who was employed as a professor (he went by the screen name of AYMON) who posted frequently. He became very upset with me on account of my observations on India. He may have been from this region and didn't resonate with my impressions at all.
I visited the Taj Mahal in 2004 when I could not get a seat (bed really) on the 40 hour train ride between New Delhi and Bangalore. I wanted to see where US computer jobs had caused a pocket of nouveau riche citizens to spring up. Due to the delay, the travel agent (quite a fellow) convinced me to see the Taj. He got me a private driver and a decent hotel, however, the image of so much poverty along the way, the families living under cardboard boxes near this architectural wonder, the women walking long distances with containers (for water) on their heads... it made me feel guilty for having the money to stay as a tourist. I would have easily shared my daily bread, but not equipped with Jesus' capacity to multiply the fish and loaves, I had to be content to offer a little to some families road side.
During my dinner at the hotel I was attended to by several very handsome young Indian male waiters. I asked them about arranged marriages and so forth. I have often thought about the combined effects of the caste system and arranged marriages, what it costs a society when mercantilism impedes the call of LOVE to bring about unions forged in the name of Mammon, rather than Venus. It's not that different in other lands, the caste system is just more covert, arranged marriages, as well.
In all humility, being myself divorced, I had to admit that the quest to, for, and about love did not always lead to a happy outcome. Still, I am grateful I was not forced into an arranged union. India is a Capricorn nation, as is Mexico, and Capricorn, the Zodiac's 10th sign sits at the TOP of the dial. Capricorn tends to support hierarchical societal structures, a top-down model of authority. This may factor into why Capricorn as a sign is so linked to status, its symbol the mountain goat that against all odds works its way to the summit. This premise of status, success, and hard work is not a bad thing, but when it is brought to the premise of marital union, I think it taints the mix. As too much of our world expresses homage to Mars, his Divine partner, Venus, is left in deficit. From my perspective, mankind's central mission is to rediscover the great balance, and I think it starts with relationships based on mutual respect and if not love, then consideration & admiration. The template of life itself, has been battered and broken... and the wars, the depravity, the lack of kindness everywhere are indications of this collapse.
Sioux, those computer jobs shipped to India are just scraps. Even with outsourcing, unemployment and job related injuries due to increased stress and stroke attacks have been going on. That's what a friend of mine who watches SUNTV told me at various times these past 5 years.
A friend of mine, also a South Indian but born here, and I are each not sure where to go on marriages but your idea strikes a good balance between love and arranged. I'm sorry to to hear about love marriages not going well. A lot of that is happening in North India. The proponents of keeping arranged marriages as the norm never stop pointing to the rise of divorces that they blame on love marriages even though it's equally from arranged marriages.
When you speak of Venus, you remind me of what I learned about women in India being oppressed ever since the Vedic Era ended. I too yearn for female leadership and I'm not referring to Sonia Gandhi who's a weak example.
Speaking of wars, I'm already worried that Afghanistan and Pakistan will spill into India. If Obama goes as planned, Iraq will pale in comparison.
I have noticed double standards about how the US treats certain nations in terms of basic defense. On the one hand, they ok Israel going extreme and using defense as an excuse to invade whereas if India, Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan are attacked by terrorist groups, they're supposed to do nothing and be used as examples to keep wars going. I have come across people saying "Israel defends itself while India cannot" and accepting that lie. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It turns out that the militant terrorist groups attacking civilians are paid CIA hacks attacking regardless of religion. It's a lot to explain than what I can write but it's as if they're trying to create a weakened Venus and make fun of her while defending Mars at all costs. If you would like, I can email you and discuss this some more. Thanks.
This whole column is based on a complete misconception about the Federal Employees Health Benefits system (FEHB). To use his folksy Texas language Hightower is barking up entirely the wrong tree here.
The FEHB system covers Congressmen the same as a GS-1 clerk. It is just an ordinary, employer-provided, employee cost-shared health care plan - and the employee share is pretty high - I pay about $360 per month - and it will probably go up 10% next year.
There are private employers - especially unionized ones, with better plans.
And the much hyped "preexisting condition" exclusion almost never applies to any group plans government or private employer.
The "Open Season" feature does allow, the employee to shop between various plans - mostly private-for-profit except the postal workers union plan. But it is not nearly as useful as it would seem. The cheaper plans have awful coverage, and changing plans usually means changing doctors.
But yes, the employer-share of the cost does come from tax revenue, but how is this different from a supermarket employee's health plan coming from the grocery consumer's pocket?
I look forward to Jim Hightower savaging the health plans that UAW Autoworkers get, UFCW Safeway employees get ATW transit workers get. How dare they get this lavish healthcare paid by the hard-working consumers and fare-payers pocket!
Come on, Jim! Attack those greedy unions and the lavish health care plans they extort from their hard working entrepenurs who are the real source of the nations wealth.
(for the clueless, I'm being sarcastic)
There's a difference between those who get healthcare insurance and those who don't.
One of the systemic problems we face is that millions of our fellow citizens are among those who don't. Or who may go bankrupt over hospital bills, or may exhaust the for profit benefits their insurer provides, or may not be qualified for insurance at all because of a "pre-existing" condition. ETC. Horror stories illustrating our current private for profit non-system are abundant.
This is not a problem faced by the members of Congress, who are being asked to expand the safety they enjoy to all Americans. What's more, paying for coverage with tax dollars, rather than private sector dollars, highlights their hypocrisy because they refuse to cover those citizens who pay for their coverage with their taxes, modest as these may be.
In other words, the Congress does not share this problem with millions of fellow Americans. And those who stand in the way of universal coverage are not thinking of the needs of the American people. But they accept the healthcare advantages the people pay for with their taxes.
How anyone can defend the private healthcare insurance industry is beyond me. They put profit first, not our needs first. Why should we put their interests ahead of ours?
But lack of health insurance is also not a problem shared by many other US workers too - especially unionized ones who usually have bargained some very good insurance plans in leiu of pay raises.
Attacking a member of congress for simply having heath insurance as part of his job compensation, like most employed americans, is dangerously like the low-wage workers I meet who are resentful of unions because the union workers higher pay is "unfair".
"Lack of health insurance is not a problem shared by many US workers.... "
But it is a problem shared by many millions of Americans.
It is a problem shared by those who have "pre existing" conditions. Whether employed or not.
It is a problem for those whose benefits max out and come to an end. Even if employed.
It is a problem for doctors, hospitals, and patients struggling over the paper work, attempting to obtain promised benefits from private insurers.
It is a problem created by private insurers who put profit first, and seek ways of not providing promised benefits.
It is a problem for those who pay into their policies for many years and then discover, when they get sick, that due to a technicality which occurred long ago they must forfeit their coverage.
It is a problem for those who lose or change their jobs and become uninsured. Perhaps because of "pre existing" conditions.
And as for your second paragraph, no one begrudges a member of Congress his healthcare benefits. They are paid for, though, by the American people with their tax dollars and claiming universal care is "socialism" and unAmerican is indeed hypocritical. The issue is not denying rights but expanding them. And that is where the problem is.
"But yes, the employer-share of the cost does come from tax revenue, but how is this different from a supermarket employee's health plan coming from the grocery consumer's pocket?"
The difference is that YOUR SALARY also comes from the taxpayers. Therefore, ALL of your insurance benefits come from the taxpayers, including the portion that you pay.
Exactly, and so does the salary of an employee of your local food store - their employee share (if they have any) comes from their paycheck, therefore your wallet as well.
You are falling for the right-wing, libertarian argument of characterizing the public sector as just a black hole into which hard working people's taxes fall into. but when you give a big corporation your money for necessities, it is never thought of that way.
Government provides services - including hopefully some day health care for all, and a generous social-wage package of services for all. Provision of these services requires employees, and under the current syatem, employees require healh insurance.
I am a full supporter of single payer - I'd trade my FEHB for that in a minute. But I think attacking those people who do have employer provided insurance is the wrong way to go. You may as well be attcking unions who have bargained a good health care package as well.
pjd
card-carrying member AFGE-NCFLL Local 644
Department of Labor - MSHA
Keeping the public option off the table and making the purchase of insurance mandatory is only stage one. Stage two, which is something that McCain was honest about, but which Obama has not discussed though he belongs to the same pack of dogs, is removing the tax incentive that employers receive for providing health insurance to the employees, and making employer funded health insurance taxable as income. We are only in stage one of the game, which ultimately will place insurance company executives among the growing body of global feudal lords.
The attack was not against those with employer provided health insurance, but against Legislators who tell you that single payer is evil government provided health care, while at the same time slipping off to get that pesky illness treated at the Capital Clinic (I doubt you have that benefit). And my guess is you are not able to go to Bethesda or Walter Reed for your surgery as did Cheney and all of the other legislators who will vote against single payer. My guess is a vast majority of the public who oppose single payer have absolutely no idea Congress has access to this low cost clinic and don't understand that many Legislators go to Reed and Bethesda for their surgery.
All health care should be paid for by tax dollars, not just yours. No health care insurance should be paid for by employers. In your case all of your health care insurance is paid for by the taxpayers, including the share that you pay since the source was tax dollars. Medicare for all. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
What I am trying to point out is that Hightower (and many posters here) are using a false analogy. The congresspeople who are critical of government health care for all citizens are not receiving health care in their capacity as citizens, they are receiving as part of their compensation as employees (albeit well paid and well treated ones) so the accusation of hypocrisy isn't valid.
That the funds come from general tax revenue (taxes always go to gov. employee pay and benefits) is immaterial as my grocery worker analogy was an attempt to point out.
When you fuss about your taxes going to gov. employee benefits, you are, perhaps unconsciously, falling for the right-wing "government just steals our money" mode of thinking - and unwittingly hurting the cause.
pjd412: FWIW, you've made this point repeatedly, and it made sense to me the first time.
I'm not criticizing you for doing so, just noting sympathetically that this seems to be one of those maddening issues where if one "gets" the point, it's not even that remarkable-- nor controversial. Or complicated.
But it seems to go right by many. It's only a guess, but IMO the rank hypocrisy and all-around unsavoriness of our shameless Elected Misrepresentatives is so powerfully offensive that it angers up the brain cells.
So your point is overwhelmed by the true but fuzzy, problematic indictment that Congresscritters get great health care, but don't want ordinary people to have it! As if the WAY they get it is irrelevant.
It's weird and unfortunate that your sensible clarification doesn't compute more readily. Good luck with your determined efforts, though.
· Yr Obd't Servant
There are two types of people in the world--those who know they're socialists, and those who don't know they're socialists.
That's good.
Or there purists who opt out of receiving anything from government: police, fire, park, library, transportation, clean water, food, etc. And when they come down with a life threatening illness in their cave refuse the help of the medivac team which appears in a helicopter out there in the primal wilderness. That is, if they truly abhor "socialism."
Very good, and the ones who don't know they are socialists, get it for themselves while the ones who know they are socialists spend their time arguing about what socialism is.
As far as I know, by far the single largest socialist program in the United States of America is the Pentagon.
I have never heard of a penny of private funding paying FOR the military monstrosity, but there are huge amounts of dollars which are used to pay for all of the Pentagon's secret projects and their "private contractors" FROM our public coffers.
So, yes, in the perverse "thinking" in Washington, Socialism (as they proudly practice it every day in the District of Corruption) can be lethal.