I tried in vain to find a valid argument in this article. Instead, it was nearly wall-to-wall non sequiturs and faulty generalizations.

There's some arm waving about how increasing the income tax on high wage earners will act as a disincentive to angel investors. Am I misunderstanding tax law, or aren't capital gains (e.g., from startup investments) separate from income for tax purposes?

Then, when Obama's "socialized medicine" plan would actually help, the author rails against it because it has 'failed everywhere it's been tried.' (Except where it has succeeded. And also, the dismal failures mentioned are anecdotal scaremongering.) The solution is held out in front of the author and he rejects it on unrelated, partisan grounds!

Maybe he makes sense to himself, but his oversimplifications haven't adequately made the case for the article title or his two supporting gripes.