Because the facts are somewhat distorted and it is not a balanced view at all.
Take birth control for example, the most popular (by far) prescription form of birth control is still "the pill" ... before the contraception mandate came into effect, any woman (insurance or no) could purchase a 1 month supply for $4 at virtually any pharmacy in America. They could save a tad more money and get 90 days supplies via mail order for $10 (again, no insurance needed). I do not see that as such a big deal, people pay more that that for condoms, which are also effective for birth control and the side benefit of preventing disease.
Lily Ledbetter was mainly a techinical argument to extend the statute of limitations for harrassment. That could be seen as a payback to the trial lawyers association, which donates heavily to the Dems and in part contributes to higher Health Care costs in the US.
I disagree with the GOP about abortion, but their stance really does not concern me. Though I think Roe v Wade was an incredibly poor decision on how it got to the result, the precedent is there. The only way abortion rights change is either an overturn of Roe or a Constitutional amendment ... both of which are higly unlikely. But the debate serves both parties well in fund raising efforts and empty rhetoric.
About Medicare, the plan Ryan puts forth was in part based on the recommendations by the panel Obama set up to study it (and other issues). It changes nothing for people over 55 and can be argued that it makes the program more solvent for years to come. The article you quoted fails to mention that Obamacare takes $716Billion away from Medicare to fund Obamacare on the premise that the system can pay doctors less. There are two opposing arguments, people can argue one has a better chance of success over the other .. .but they both "change Medicare as we know it". Again, a fun issue to demagogue.
The Planned Parenthood issue is also distorted, the vote to cut off funding is related to abortions. Not other services they provide. It is a small percentage of the money they receive and most analysts see it as no threat to the viability to the organization.
I am not sure about the town hall deal, I suspect these people were not simply asking questions, but creating a scene. Plenty of protestors were kicked out of Dem Town Halls (any many stopped having them) during the Health Care debate. If people had to pay $15 to get in, I tend to think this was a fundraiser and private event versus a Town Hall.
Dude, your facts aren't all right either.
1. Some people can get standard hormonal birth control for fuck-cheap. But a lot of women can't. Some require expensive prescriptions because the regular pill doesn't work. Others need depro provera shots, and some get IUDs. Those costs can be upwards of $1000 plus a doctor's visit (which, in the USA, you need insurance for). Source: USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health...ices-range-widley-from-100-to-1000/53434126/1
2. You could say Lily Ledbetter FPA was a kickback to trial lawyers. Or you could say that it is allowing women to sue for inequal pay after 180 days of employment. It has very little to do with the costs of medicine. One of the reasons the Lily Ledbetter FPA was needed was due to a Supreme Court caste that pretty much stated it needed to happen, and saves money on trial costs (over 300 trials since then that would have been avoided if this was law, according to Wiki). Making existing case law into federal law will probably reduce the amount of long, expensive trials and move people into the "cease and desist" letter range far more easily. Some lawyers will make a bit more, some will make less. Plus, I would think that equal rights are worth paying the lawyers a bit - isn't that how rights are affirmed in the USA, through the legal system?
Source: Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act
3. Yep, though I think some GOP members' stance on abortion is symbolic of a lot of deep-seated problems. It's still empty rhetoric.
4. I am assuming you're referring to Simpson-Bowles here. Yes, there are some aspects of that tossed into the Ryan plan (raising the retirement age, maintaining Medicare costs), but nothing like the voucher plan. S-B gutted Social Security more thoroughly, and that's highly unlikely to be discussed given the way the GOP paid for looking at privatizing it in 2006. Also, saying Obama's plan takes $716 b. from Medicare is, while true, more that it uses that as savings by restricting the types of tests that can be made: aka, Medicare fraud, which Forbes calls the biggest city crime. According to Forbes, those $716 b. come from removing a lot of unnecessary testing and also by local association budget cuts. So Obama isn't stealing - he's reducing costs, exactly as the right wants to do. They are paying doctors less - by not allowing doctors to defraud the system as easily.
Source: Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ally-cut-medicare-benefits-to-senior-citizens
5. Planned Parenthood is generally funded at the state level (except in some cases, as we will shortly discuss). What Ryan wanted to do was restrict the funding to states for the purposes of funding Planned Parenthood. Currently, several states (Indiana is one I know for sure) have voted to stop giving any funding to Planned Parenthood, and Obama redirected their state-based federal funding directly to the organizations with an executive order. It should be noted that the states that defunded Planned Parenthood did not remove their abortion funding, but in reality, removed all their money to try to kill the organization. Planned Parenthood mostly concentrates on women's health and contraception, but the states that tried to kill it, tried to kill all of it. So this is a convoluted issue.
6. This is standard now on both sides. Town halls very quickly became pay-only so they can be listed as fundraisers. I've seen politicians from both sides of the aisle do this - and some have proper town halls. Does it make me think Ryan prefers optics to representation? Yes. But most politicians do, because they're not smart or charismatic enough to answer questions they aren't prepared for.
