A question for my conservative friends . . .

I know Rush Limbaugh does not speak for all conservatives, but he does seem to speak for a lot of them.  National Review, for example, quoted a long excerpt from Rush's show yesterday with praise for this "steady voice of conservatism."  Here's a snippet:

But if we're going to keep this notion that everybody's entitled to have whatever they want medically paid for by their neighbors, then we are finished. We are finished as a country; we are finished as a society. You can talk about my wealth, but let me tell you something, sir. I don't depend on anybody else for anything, and it was one of my objectives when I grew up. I didn't want to be obligated. I didn't want to be dependent. I didn't want to owe anybody. I don't buy into insurance plans because it's a hassle! Now, I know a lot of people don't have that freedom. I used to not have that freedom, either. But I do now because I worked for it — and if I can do it, a lot more people can do it than think they can, and that's conservatism again.

Here's the question for my conservative friends: Is Rush correct that conservativism stands for complete self-reliance and independence?  I understand -- and agree with, in many contexts -- conservatism's skepticism toward government as the most effective provider for human needs.  But Rush seems to be taking that skepticism to another level, turning it into a principle that stands in direct conflict with the nature of the human person, as expressed through the ideas of solidarity, reciprocity, subsidiarity, and the common good.  I know there are many different currents within the mighty conservative river, and so I'm likely to get many different answers, but let me try to simplify the question: is Rush disconnected from mainstream American conservatism, or is mainstream American conservatism disconnected from an authentic understanding of the human person?