語篇格律在實現(xiàn)英語社論目的中的作用

趙 民

(上海交通大學(xué),上海,200240)

引 言

“張嘴皆有目的”(王振華2002),“發(fā)話即是判斷”(To breathe is to judge)(Sarangi 2003,引自王振華2008:51)。根據(jù)王振華(2008),語篇是實現(xiàn)目的過程的系統(tǒng),如果沒有目的,語篇則不是完整的系統(tǒng)。語篇的社會目的和語篇的三個要件(語篇生產(chǎn)者、語篇自身和語篇消費(fèi)者)共同構(gòu)成語篇系統(tǒng)。因此,研究語篇目的成為研究語篇語義的重要內(nèi)容。

語篇格律是語類理論的下位理論,是研究語篇目的實現(xiàn)的有效工具。語篇格律的研究在系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)領(lǐng)域里主要出自Martin和Rose(2003/2007)和王振華(2008;2009)等學(xué)者之手。其中,Martin和Rose(2003/2007)提出的語篇語義分析模式(評價、概念、聯(lián)結(jié)、識別和語篇格律)中,語篇格律是實現(xiàn)語篇語義的一個維度。王振華(2009)提出的一個范式(系統(tǒng)科學(xué))、兩個脈絡(luò)(文脈和義脈)、三種功能(語篇功能、概念功能和人際功能)、四種語義(織體語義、格律語義、詞匯語義和韻律語義)和五個視角(聯(lián)結(jié)、格律、識別、概念和評價)的語篇語義分析模式中,語篇格律研究貫穿于整個語篇語義研究。基于他們的理論,本文從語篇格律框架入手,研究其對實現(xiàn)語篇目的的作用。

1.語篇格律

語言學(xué)界的格律研究主要包括對“話段”(utterance)和語篇的研究,稱為語篇格律或者篇章格律研究(王振華2002:179)。把格律研究推衍至語篇層面的學(xué)者是系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)派的代表人J. R. Martin(Martin和Rose2003/2007)。Martin和Rose(2003/2007:175)指出,格律關(guān)注的是信息的流動,語篇格律主要指語篇信息分布的規(guī)律。格律就是把信息打包以便于人們更好地理解語篇。Martin和Rose把Pike和Halliday等人關(guān)于語言學(xué)研究中的“波浪”這一概念推衍至語篇層面(王振華2007)。如果說語篇的意義如同波韻一般滲透于語篇,那么語篇格律就如同波韻周圍的不同波峰之間形成的節(jié)奏,不同的波峰之間形成一個信息相,語篇最終便具有了不同的層次和結(jié)構(gòu)。

本文主要采用Martin和Rose(2007)關(guān)于語篇的“大波浪”(bigger waves)和“浪潮”(tidal waves)的觀點(diǎn),著重分析兩家報紙社論在小句以上語言單位的信息流動和分布。大波浪由高級語篇相,即段落層的兩個波峰“超主位”(hyperTheme)和“超新信息”(hyperNew)組成。超主位指一個段落的主題句,超新信息是該段落每個句子的新信息“蒸餾”(distillling)到一個句子以后濃縮形成的新信息。超主位告訴人們語篇的去向,超新信息告訴我們語篇到了何處。浪潮是高于段落層的更高級語篇相,由“宏觀主位”(MacroTheme)和“宏觀新信息”(MacroNew)組成。宏觀主位不止一個,可以是語篇的一個段落,或語篇的題目,也可以是一本書的目錄等。宏觀主位預(yù)測超主位,宏觀信息蒸餾超新信息。

2. 語料

我們從互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上選取美國《紐約時報》和《洛杉磯時報》對奧巴馬醫(yī)療改革的系列英語社論為語料,各10篇。主要因為兩家報紙在美國影響巨大,且都享有很大的評論自由，而且,兩報對奧巴馬的醫(yī)療改革都作了系列社論評論,為更好地對比分析同屬社論語類的不同語篇的語篇格律提供了可能性。另外,兩報社論報道的時間接近,社論主題也基本一致。

為了方便分析,我們把《紐約時報》和《洛杉磯時報》的社論分別編碼為:N1,N2…N10;和L1,L2…L10。社論標(biāo)題如附錄1所示。從篇幅來看,《紐約時報》關(guān)于奧巴馬醫(yī)療改革的系列社論報道比《洛杉磯時報》的社論報道要長。此外,《洛杉磯時報》的社論標(biāo)題后面都有一段文字,來闡述標(biāo)題和表明該社論的觀點(diǎn)。如L1、L2、L3和L4的標(biāo)題和闡述文字:

L1: The “Cadillac” compromise

Yes, unions negotiated a better deal for labor. But the goal of controlling costs was preserved.

L2: Reform, meet Anthem Blue Cross

The insurer’s proposed rate hikes are the best argument for passing healthcare reform now.

L3: Obama’s summit

At Thursday’s meeting on health reform, the focus should be on reining in rapidly rising costs.

L4: The way forward

What did Obama’s summit prove? That Democrats are on the right track, and need to get a bill passed.

每個標(biāo)題下面的文字是在語篇展開前,向受眾初步表明該社論的觀點(diǎn)和立場。本文沒有將這些句子列為社論的副標(biāo)題,而是將其歸為語篇內(nèi)容。同時,這些句子和社論的結(jié)尾遙相呼應(yīng),是社論觀點(diǎn)的先聲傳達(dá)。這樣,語篇受眾很容易明白標(biāo)題的含義和社論評論的走向和落腳點(diǎn)。

《紐約時報》的社論篇幅較長,不便提供其社論原文,故只提供了下文所分析的《洛杉磯時報》的L1和L7兩篇社論原文,供讀者參考(見附錄2)。

3. 格律分析和討論

根據(jù)Martin(1992/2006:505),語類是以目的為取向的、分階段實現(xiàn)的社會過程。一般說來,社論作為新聞?wù)Z類的次語類,其主要目的是引導(dǎo)輿論,指導(dǎo)受眾,或向受眾解釋新聞事件。本文認(rèn)為,具體的社論語篇目的各有側(cè)重,對所評論的新聞事件各持不同的態(tài)度和立場,或贊同或反對或提議等,而且表明觀點(diǎn)或立場的方式和程度也不同。比如,有明確贊同或激烈反對,亦有間接支持或反對。因此,社論還可以根據(jù)其目的實現(xiàn)方式或觀點(diǎn)和立場的不同,產(chǎn)生社論的次語類。為了明確語篇格律在實現(xiàn)社論語篇目的過程中的角色,本文把選取的社論語篇目的逐一作了分析,總結(jié)如表1所示,以便我們更好地研究語篇格律和語篇目的之間的關(guān)系。需要說明的是,表1中所列的目的分析中包含的觀點(diǎn)都是針對奧巴馬醫(yī)療改革這個主題的,不具體關(guān)涉每個社論語篇的具體主題。

表1 《紐約時報》和《洛杉磯時報》的社論目的分析

(續(xù)表)

本文根據(jù)上文提及的Martin和Rose(2003/2007)關(guān)于超主位和超新信息、宏觀主位和宏觀新信息的觀點(diǎn),對所選《紐約時報》和《洛杉磯時報》社論進(jìn)行了格律分析。為了更好地明示語篇格律在實現(xiàn)語篇目的過程中的作用,本文把目的相同的兩報社論分組進(jìn)行分析和討論。具體說來,是根據(jù)目的把所選社論分為以下三組:(1)明確支持+提議,如N6和L5;(2)支持/贊同+提議,如N5和L1;(3)間接支持或間接贊同,如N9和L7。因篇幅所限,我們只討論第二組和第三組社論的語篇格律和語篇目的之間的關(guān)系,且只討論宏觀主位和宏觀新信息這一層面的格律特點(diǎn)。

第二組社論:支持/贊同+提議。以N5和L1語篇為例。在共有17段的題為CadillacPlans的N5語篇中出現(xiàn)了9個宏觀主位和2個宏觀新信息。這些宏觀主位主要通過社論的標(biāo)題、某些段落和段落的小標(biāo)題實現(xiàn)。這9個宏觀主位分別出現(xiàn)在:標(biāo)題、第1段、第2段、第4段、第5段、第9段、第11段、第12段和第15段。宏觀新信息出現(xiàn)在:第16段和第17段。其中,這些段落的小標(biāo)題出現(xiàn)在第5段、第9段、第11段、第12段和第15段這5個宏觀主位的位置。同時,第4段的宏觀主位還兼具超新信息的角色,第16段和第17段的宏觀新信息還兼具超新信息的角色。為了更好地說明段落小標(biāo)題的位置和作用,我們選取了N5的部分段落進(jìn)行例析:

(第5段) HOW IT WORKS Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. ...

(第9段) WHY IT’S GOOD A vast majority of economists agree that the tax would be a valuable cost-control feature. ...

(第11段) POTENTIAL HARM There is some risk—nobody knows how large—that higher deductibles and co-payments would discourage some people, especially the chronically ill, from seeking medical care that they need. ...

(第12段) WILL EMPLOYEES RECOUP? Eminent economists—and the official scorers at the Joint Committee on Taxation—believe that as employers spend less on health benefits they will increase wages to continue to attract high-quality workers. ...

(第15段) MORE SENSIBLE TARGETING Many of the policies described as Cadillac plans are not costly because they provide lavish benefits but rather because they cover workers who are older and sicker than most, or who work in high-cost areas or in high-risk industries.

這些段落中的黑體大寫小標(biāo)題如HOW IT WORKS,WHY IT’S GOOD等起到了社論在該論證階段的宏觀主位的作用。這些小標(biāo)題使得原本看起來冗長的社論論證層次清晰,使社論語篇富有合理的節(jié)奏,便于受眾理解社論的意圖,從而更好地實現(xiàn)社論的目的。

此外,宏觀主位和宏觀新信息等概念是相對而言的。具體來說,語篇向內(nèi)而言,不同階段都可能會有屬于該階段的宏觀主位和宏觀新信息,如上述段落小標(biāo)題HOW IT WORKS,WHY IT’S GOOD,POTENTIAL HARM,WILL EMPLOYEES RECOUP和MORE SENSIBLE TARGETING等。語篇向外而言也有可能會出現(xiàn)宏觀主位,如語篇的標(biāo)題和《洛杉磯時報》的標(biāo)題后續(xù)文字等,如L5和L6所示:

L5: Reconciliation: the endgame

Reform is desperately needed, and if that means Democrats must push through a bill, that’s OK.

L6: Cost control’s the key

Republicans who say the House and Senate bills won’t limit spending on care are wrong.

另外,N5的格律還具備一個特點(diǎn),即一個語篇相可以同時兼任兩個角色。如N5的宏觀主位(第4段),同時兼具超新信息的角色,如下述段落所示:

(第1段) The agreement between the White House, Congressional leaders and labor unions over taxing high-priced health insurance policies is a reasonable solution to an issue that was threatening to derail health care reform. The agreement treats unionized workers far more favorably than nonunion workers, the price for the support of important Democratic constituencies. But it would preserve the tax’s crucial role in slowing the rise in health care costs for decades to come.

(第2段) When the Senate voted for the tax on high-priced employer-sponsored health insurance policies—“Cadillac plans”—labor leaders and many House Democrats complained that the tax would penalize middle-class people who had plans that were hardly lavish. They much preferred the House approach: a so-called millionaire’s tax, a surcharge on earnings above1 million a year for couples.

(第3段) A millionaire’s tax may not survive the negotiations on a final bill, but Congress has to find money to pay for health insurance for millions of Americans. The agreement makes that more difficult because it is expected to reduce the money generated by the excise tax substantially from the original Senate bill. Rich Americans and the industries involved in health care should pick up much of the added burden.

(第4段) The proposed excise tax on high-cost plans is the most significant measure in either bill to slow the relentless rise in health care spending.

(第5段) HOW IT WORKS Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer’s often-substantial contribution. That’s why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise.

(第9段) WHY IT’S GOOD A vast majority of economists agree that the tax would be a valuable cost-control feature. In our largely fee-for-service system, doctors have an economic incentive to provide more services. With insurance covering most of the bill, neither patients nor doctors worry much about costs. Requiring workers to pay more out of pocket would force them and their doctors to think a lot more carefully about whether an expensive test or treatment is really necessary.

第4段(粗體部分)是第1段至第4段這一個語篇相的超新信息,又是第4段以后的語篇相的宏觀主位,因為第4段以后的論證都是圍繞“the proposed excise tax on high-cost plans”這個主題展開討論的。此外,N5的第16段和第17段也同時擔(dān)任宏觀新信息和超新信息兩個角色。這表明,宏觀主位和宏觀新信息是相對而言,并非只是語篇向外更高級的語篇相才會出現(xiàn)宏觀主位和宏觀新信息。一個語篇相兼任兩個角色,對社論N5來說,使其語篇各階段的論證環(huán)環(huán)相扣、長而不亂。

整體來看,N5內(nèi)部在第5段、第9段、第11段、第12段和第15段出現(xiàn)的5個宏觀主位,即段落小標(biāo)題HOW IT WORKS,WHY IT’S GOOD,POTENTIAL HARM,WILL EMPLOYEES RECOUP和MORE SENSIBLE TARGETING,使語篇富有層次性,散而不亂,從多方面論證“the proposed excise tax on high-cost plans”這個主題,并且論證豐富翔實,極具廣度。第16段和第17段的超新信息/宏觀新信息,積累了社論多方面論證的新信息后,向受眾展示了社論結(jié)尾所表明的立場和觀點(diǎn),并進(jìn)一步深化主題。這一點(diǎn),從第1段的宏觀主位和第16段的超新信息/宏觀新信息,以及第4段的宏觀主位和第17段的宏觀新信息/超新信息可以看出,如下述段落所示:

(第1段) The agreement between the White House, Congressional leaders and labor unions over taxing high-priced health insurance policies is a reasonable solution to an issue that was threatening to derail health care reform. The agreement treats unionized workers far more favorably than nonunion workers, the price for the support of important Democratic constituencies. But it would preserve the tax’s crucial role in slowing the rise in health care costs for decades to come.

(第4段) The proposed excise tax on high-cost plans is the most significant measure in either bill to slow the relentless rise in health care spending.

(第16段) The agreement would raise the thresholds for plans covering workers who are disproportionately old or female or employed in a wide range of high-risk jobs. There would be a transition period for states where medical costs are high. These look like reasonable exceptions to ensure that the tax falls on truly generous plans.

(第17段) A vast majority of workers would not be affected by the proposed excise tax. Those that are hit should remember that the bulk of their health benefits would remain exempt from taxes—an enormous subsidy from the taxpayer. For the sake of reining in costs and helping to pay for covering the uninsured, taxing high-priced plans is the right thing to do.

粗體部分是討論的主題,從中我們可以看出,第16段是對第1段的深化,第17段是對第4段的深化,彼此遙相呼應(yīng),使社論既富有節(jié)奏,又深化了主題并且表明了立場和觀點(diǎn)。

一言以蔽之, N5通過使用段落小標(biāo)題,為社論從多方面,多角度論證提供了空間,同時亦使得其長達(dá)17段的社論語篇格律清晰明了,使受眾容易把握語篇信息流動的去向,更好地理解語篇,從而達(dá)到實現(xiàn)社論引導(dǎo)輿論的目的。此外,N5中一個語篇相擔(dān)任兩個角色的特點(diǎn),使該社論層層相連,有利于語篇對所評論的新聞事件進(jìn)行更深入地論證和剖析,更好地實現(xiàn)社論目的。

相比較而言,L1篇幅短小,共有5段,語篇格律簡單明了,出現(xiàn)了4個宏觀主位和1個宏觀新信息。4個宏觀主位分別出現(xiàn)在:標(biāo)題、標(biāo)題后續(xù)文字、第1段和第3段。宏觀新信息出現(xiàn)在第5段(詳見附錄2的L1語篇)。第3段的宏觀主位同時擔(dān)任超新信息的角色。具體說來,第3段在社論中的第1段至第3段這一個語篇相中,充當(dāng)超新信息的角色,而在第3段以后的語篇相中,又起到宏觀主位的作用,使得社論各部分緊密相連。雖然N5和 L1這一組社論都是支持/贊同+提議,但是N5中通過使用段落小標(biāo)題作為宏觀主位,從多方面論證所評論的主題,使社論論證充實豐滿,極具廣度和深度。和社論N5相比,L1因較少出現(xiàn)宏觀主位,似乎稍欠說服力,論證缺乏廣度和深度。但是,L1的標(biāo)題后續(xù)文字,彌補(bǔ)了這一缺點(diǎn),明確了社論的態(tài)度和立場。

第三組社論:間接支持或間接贊同。以N9和L7為例。根據(jù)Martin和Rose關(guān)于宏觀主位和宏觀新信息的觀點(diǎn),我們分析了N9和L7的語篇格律。在共有28段的N9中,出現(xiàn)了10個宏觀主位和2個宏觀新信息。10個宏觀主位分別出現(xiàn)在:標(biāo)題、第1段、第2段、第3段、第4段、第7段、第11段、第16段、第19段和第22段。其中第4段至第22段的宏觀主位都是由段落小標(biāo)題來實現(xiàn)的,這一特點(diǎn)和N5相似。這些宏觀主位摘錄如下述段落所示:

(標(biāo)題) If Reform Fails

(第1段) As the fierce debate on President Obama’s plan for health care reform comes to a head, Americans should be thinking carefully about what happens if Congress fails to enact legislation.

(第2段) Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?

(第3段) Here are some basic facts Americans need to know as Congress decides whether to approve comprehensive reform or continue with what we have.

(第4段) HOW REFORM WOULD WORK: Let’s be clear, the changes Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress are proposing are significant.

(第7段) 46 MILLION AND RISING: If nothing is done, the number of uninsured people—46 million in 2008—is sure to spike upward as rising medical costs and soaring premiums make policies less affordable and employers continue to drop coverage to save money.

(第11段) BUT I HAVE INSURANCE: While most Americans have insurance, many pay exorbitant rates because they have no bargaining power with insurers.

(第16段) BUT I LIKE MY INSURANCE: Most Americans get their insurance through large companies, with large group bargaining power.

(第19段) I’M JUST WORRIED ABOUT COSTS: You should be.

(第22段) WHAT ABOUT THE DEFICIT?: Republican critics of health care reform have done an especially good job of frightening Americans with their talk of bankrupting the Treasury.

上述段落中的HOW REFORM WOULD WORK,46 MILLION AND RISING等段落小標(biāo)題充當(dāng)了宏觀主位的角色,使長達(dá)28段的社論層次清晰,易于理解,為向受眾更好地解釋醫(yī)療改革起到了畫龍點(diǎn)睛的作用。

2個宏觀新信息出現(xiàn)在第27段和第28段,摘錄下述段落所示:

(第27段) If reform is defeated, it seems likely that most of the proposed experiments designed to cut costs—first within Medicare and then throughout the rest of the health care system—will die as well. The legislation needs to be passed to establish a structure to force continuing improvement over the years. That is the best chance of restraining soaring medical costs that threaten the solvency of families, businesses and the federal government.

(第28段) Any change as big as this is bound to cause anxiety. Republicans have happily fanned those fears with talk of “dangerous experiments” on the “best health care system in the world.” The fact is that the health care system is broken for far too many Americans. And the country cannot afford the status quo.

N9的語篇格律的特點(diǎn)在于第2段宏觀主位和第28段的宏觀新信息之間的關(guān)系。第2段宏觀主位采用設(shè)問的方式,“Are they really satisfied with the status quo? And is the status quo really sustainable?”預(yù)示了社論第28段“The fact is that the health care system is broken for far too many Americans. And the country cannot afford the status quo.”的宏觀新信息。換言之,第28段的宏觀新信息隱性地重現(xiàn)和深化了第2段宏觀主位的信息,使信息兼具已知和未知的特點(diǎn),更好地體現(xiàn)了社論的目的是間接支持的特點(diǎn)。同時,需要指出的是N9和N5一樣使用了段落小標(biāo)題,如HOW REFORM WOULD WORK,46 MILLION AND RISING和I’M JUST WORRIED ABOUT COSTS等。所以語篇內(nèi)部出現(xiàn)了多個宏觀主位,從而使社論語篇論證富有層次,語篇結(jié)構(gòu)清晰明了。社論的最后一段即第28段,用原點(diǎn)“?”和社論其他部分隔開,十分明確地告訴受眾第28段是社論的結(jié)尾,也就是社論將在第28段闡明其觀點(diǎn),使受眾較容易明白社論的態(tài)度和立場,從而更好地實現(xiàn)社論的目的。

L7共5段,出現(xiàn)了3個宏觀主位和1個宏觀新信息。3個宏觀主位分別出現(xiàn)在:標(biāo)題、標(biāo)題闡述句和第1段。宏觀新信息為第5段(詳見附錄2中的L7語篇)。第5段的宏觀新信息兼具超新信息的角色,說明L7的結(jié)尾處的超新信息又兼具全篇社論宏觀新信息的特點(diǎn)。這點(diǎn)和N5的宏觀主位(第4段)一樣。

4. 結(jié)論

本文以《紐約時報》和《洛杉磯時報》有關(guān)奧巴馬醫(yī)療改革的系列英語社論報道為語料,較為詳細(xì)地分析了社論的語篇格律走勢。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)語篇格律對社論目的的實現(xiàn)有重要作用:1)語篇格律體現(xiàn)的層級關(guān)系和隱性聯(lián)系越多,社論的論證就越具有廣度和深度,越能更好地實現(xiàn)社論的輿論導(dǎo)向;2)同一語篇相兼具兩個角色,使社論各部分的論證環(huán)環(huán)相扣,主題論證的更加深入、更具說服力,更好地實現(xiàn)社論引導(dǎo)輿論的目的;3)《紐約時報》使用段落小標(biāo)題充當(dāng)語篇內(nèi)部的宏觀主位,使社論論證層次清晰,論據(jù)豐富,能更好地說服受眾?！堵迳即墪r報》則使用標(biāo)題后續(xù)文字充當(dāng)宏觀主位,使社論語篇富有節(jié)奏,語篇格律清晰明了,有助于受眾更好地理解社論的觀點(diǎn)和立場,以實現(xiàn)社論輿論導(dǎo)向的目的。

附注:

① 感謝導(dǎo)師王振華教授,以及在導(dǎo)師定期舉辦的“語言科學(xué)和系統(tǒng)科學(xué)”討論會上向紅、劉成博、程微、張先剛、田聰、潘曉霞、藍(lán)芳和李冬等同學(xué)對本文提出的修改建議。

Martin, J.R. 1992/2006.EnglishText:SystemandStructure[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press.

Martin, J. R. & D. Rose. 2003/2007.WorkingwithDiscourse:MeaningBeyondtheClause[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press.

王振華.2002.馬丁論篇章格律[A].黃國文.語篇·語言功能·語言教學(xué)[C].廣州:中山大學(xué)出版社.

王振華.2007.語篇研究—跨越小句的意義:導(dǎo)讀[A].北京:北京大學(xué)出版社.

王振華.2008.作為系統(tǒng)的語篇[J].外語學(xué)刊(3):50-57.

王振華.2009.語篇語義的研究路徑[J].中國外語(6):26-38.

附錄1:

表1 《紐約時報》和《洛杉磯時報》的社論標(biāo)題

(續(xù)表)

附錄2:

L1: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-health16-2010jan16,0,5035904.story

The “Cadillac” compromise

Yes, unions negotiated a better deal for labor. But the goal of controlling costs was preserved.

January16, 2010

Lobbyists for organized labor usually run into stiff Republican head winds when pushing their legislative agenda. But on healthcare reform, congressional Republicans proved to be the unions’ most valuable ally—albeit inadvertently. With no GOP votes available for the House and Senate reform bills, top Democrats and the White House had little choice but to make peace with the unions on the issue of taxing “Cadillac” insurance plans, giving unionized workers far more time to adjust to the new tax than nonunion employees. That isn’t fair, but in the long run the deal preserves an important piece of the bill’s approach to controlling healthcare costs.

At issue is the Senate proposal to raise about150 billion through a new excise tax on the most expensive health insurance policies. Many of these policies currently impose no or minimal co-pays and deductibles, which has the unhelpful effect of insulating policyholders too completely from the cost of care. The result is that consumers make needless trips to the doctor, and healthcare providers spend excessively on diagnoses and treatments. The Cadillac tax would discourage this type of coverage, injecting more market discipline into the healthcare industry. A more direct approach would be to cap the income tax exemption for health benefits, but a tax on Cadillac plans is the next best thing.

The compromise won by the unions would exempt more plans by having the tax kick in at a higher premium amount—24,000 per year for family plans, not23,000. The effective date of the tax would also be delayed from 2013 to 2018 for those covered by union contracts.

Labor lobbyists made a reasonable case that the new tax would hit their members disproportionately because many locals had bargained for richer insurance policies in lieu of higher wages. But the same could be said of any worker with a Cadillac plan—there’s always a trade-off between wages and benefits. And tax laws change all the time, heedless of the disruption that might ensue to those under long-term employment contracts. That’s why it makes sense to give everyone a few years to adapt, and why moving back the starting point just for union members smacks of special-interest favoritism.

Still, unions are hardly alone in taking advantage of the Democrats’ scramble to hold onto votes within their party. And keeping a tax on high-end plans, even if it’s delayed, will help temper the demand that’s contributing to runaway healthcare costs. The next question is how Democrats will recoup the revenue lost through the compromise (about60 billion over 10 years). Their focus should be on sources that, like the tax on Cadillac plans, serve the goals of health reform, not the cause of political expediency.

L7: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-health18-2010mar18,0,378258.story

Closing in on an up-or-down vote

Tactics aside, the fate of comprehensive reform will be decided soon by the House.

March18,2010

Opponents of comprehensive healthcare reform have achieved something remarkable, if not necessarily admirable: Having stopped the legislation from being considered and passed in the usual fashion, Republicans have now ginned up a debate over the extraordinary procedural steps they’ve forced Democrats to take to complete the work. This ugly, gimmick-ridden process brings no credit to either side. Yet the fist-pounding over the shortcut being contemplated by House leaders shouldn’t obscure the simple reality of the vote that House members are expected to cast this weekend. It may not be an up-or-down vote on the Senate’s version of the bill, but it is an up-or-down vote on comprehensive healthcare reform.

Ordinarily, House members would vote on a conference report negotiated with the Senate, not on a Senate bill they dislike. That’s not an option for the healthcare bill, because a conference report couldn’t survive a Republican filibuster. The only hope for the bill is to have the House pass the Senate version, then use a reconciliation bill—which can’t be filibustered—to enact changes.

Yet many House Democrats aren’t willing to vote for the Senate’s version, in part because of the special deals some senators cut for their states (such as the “Cornhusker Kickback” and the “Louisiana Purchase”). So Democratic leaders reportedly want House members to adopt a rule that would deem the Senate bill passed if the House voted in favor of the reconciliation bill, which would remove the special deals and make other improvements.

Such “self-executing rules” are neither ideal nor uncommon—Republicans adopted 36 of them when they controlled the House in 2005-06. For the sake of transparency in government, we would rather see the House vote separately on the Senate measure and the reconciliation bill. But the exaggerated objections voiced by Republicans are more than a little hypocritical. And no matter what procedural swerves Democrats make to circumvent the GOP roadblocks, they will still need a majority to enact a healthcare bill.

More important, any House members who vote for reconciliation under a self- executing rule will be unmistakably voting to enact into law a sweeping change in the healthcare system, extending coverage to millions of the uninsured, outlawing abusive insurance industry practices, promoting higher-quality care and attacking the incentives that drive up costs. At the same time, they’ll be voting to improve the Senate’s approach by eliminating special deals and making insurance more affordable to the working poor. That’s not an abuse of power, that’s a win-win.