For argument's sake, I want to take the position that support for Medicare "restructuring" (as proposed in Ryan's budget) should imply support for the health insurance "mandate" (as laid out in the PPACA and HCERA). The two aren't exactly the same (obviously) but maybe they're duals or isomorphic or something...
The "mandate", of course, isn't a mandate at all... If you don't have health insurance, then you're subject to a tax. Perhaps it's better to state that everyone is subject to the tax, but those with health insurance qualify for a credit which nullifies that tax. So, if you purchase health insurance, then you receive a benefit from the government.
What about Ryan's "voucher" plan? Well, we might argue that the voucher is an unconditional benefit from the government. But clearly that isn't the case... that benefit only has value if, again, you purchase health insurance. And to make things worse, you've already paid (significantly) for that "benefit" over your working lifetime.
To recap: the Ryan plan says that you will be forced to pay for a future benefit, and that you will receive that benefit only if you purchase health insurance. The PPACA "mandate" says that (without paying for it ahead of time) a benefit is provided to those who purchase health insurance.
To me, it's clear that the Medicare "voucher" plan is stinkier than the PPACA "mandate", and so if you like vouchers, you should love mandates.
YOIKS!
The first several comments appear to miss the point of this diary. I am not saying that I like vouchers. I am not saying that our social safety net should be torn. I am not saying that I like the "mandate". In fact, I'm not saying anything either for or against any modification to our current system.
What I am trying to say is that if you are in favor of the voucher system proposed by Mr. Ryan, then you should have no logical opposition to the PPACA "mandate". That is, any GOPer who voted for Ryan's budget and voices opposition to "Obamacare" is an idiot.