You bring up the issue of abortion and the funding of Planned Parenthood. While I'm not a huge fan of late term abortion, I think that every child should be a wanted child, and that no one other than the mother is in a better position to make the difficult decisions surrounding pregnancy termination. In fact, I used to contribute $100 a year to Planned Parenthood. The story of why I stopped may be instructive.
To understand the story, you need to understand the Stupak amendment, which is part of Obamacare. The Stupak amendment prohibits most health insurance policies offered on Obamacare "exchanges" from covering abortion. Obamacare requires small businesses and individuals who don't have employer health insurance to use these exchanges. Because Obamacare has additional provisions to promote the use of exchanges, and because of the effects of competition and standardization, these provisions of Obamacare are projected eventually to eliminate all health insurance abortion coverage:http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/study-stupak-amendment-will-eliminate-abortion-coverage-over-time-for-all-women.php
Planned Parenthood originally objected to the Stupak amendment. However, when push came to shove, they betrayed their supposed mission and supported Obamacare.
Why did they do that? Well, it turns out they stood to gain more money under Obamacare. That money wouldn't go towards family planning, but it turns out that only a minority of Planned Parenthood spending is about family planning any more. Most of it is for general purpose women's health care. So basically they sold ou and supported legislation diametrically opposed to their principles in order to feed at the government trough. That's when I quit contributing to them.
Planned Parenthood is no longer about planned parenthood. It's about getting money for one set of gynecologists at the cost of another set of gynecologists.
In the greater scheme of things, a cut of $300 million - $0.3 billion - to "family planning' that funds one particular chain of women's health clinics is tiny compared to the $100s of billions spent on medicaid and medicare. General women's health expenditures should be addressed in the latter, not parceled out piecemeal to specific politically favored organizations.
And incidentally, that's an excellent illustration of why I think Obamacare is such bad news for actual health care. It favors politically connected special interests - Planned Parenthood, corporate hospitals, the pharmaceuticals industry - over health care organizations that may do a better job for patients, like physician owned hospitals. Bet you didn't know that Obamacare restricts physician owned hospitals from expanding.
As for "capping" medicare, no one believes that the current rapid growth in medicare is sustainable. As you say, Romney does want to limit the growth in medicare expenditures, to something only slightly larger than inflation. Obama cuts medicare drastically to help finance Obamacare. As someone who will be eligible for medicare in a little over a decade, I'd much rather have Romney's version.