...is that it would demonstrate a socially-useful function of capitalism: Promoting the health of the populace if it puts a buck in the pockets of a capitalist.

I suspect a conservative would find the notion attractive, feeling like a vindication, but then, if so, please explain how a paternalistic capitalist is an improvement over a paternalistic bureaucrat?

As dependencies go, why is depending on "trickle down" from individuals strictly pursuing their own interests better than "we the people" watching each others' backs?

So much to hang on one little news anecdote, eh? But it's a slow, rainy day here on the left coast.