TED演讲:美国人在健康问题上的共识是什么(3)

 　　Now, there's been some action, too. 现在，人们也已经有所行动。

　　Over the past decade, six major health care providers and insurers have committed over 600 million dollars to affordable 1 housing, 在过去几十年，6家主要医疗保健提供商和保险公司已经投入超过6亿美元到可负担得起的住房，
　　recognizing that it reduces infant mortality and increases life expectancy 2. But let's be honest. 意识到它可以减低婴儿死亡率并增加预期寿命。但让我们坦诚说。
　　Is our 3.5 trillion dollar health care system fundamentally designed to create health? Absolutely not. 我们那3.5万亿医药保健系统根本上是为了创造健康吗？绝对不是。
　　Take access to healthy food. Not long ago, a teenage boy shows up at a hospital in Baltimore, losing weight. 拿获取健康食品来讲。不久前，一个十多岁的小孩出现在巴尔的摩一家医院，身体消瘦。
　　Just as his doctors are huddled 3 up figuring out which metabolic 4 panels and blood tests to run, 就在医生聚在一起想要搞清楚要进行哪些代谢功能检验和血液测试时，
　　one of my colleagues asks out loud, "Do you think he might be hungry?" 我一个同事大声询问，“你们认为他可能是饿了吗？”
　　It turned out that this kid had been kicked out of his housing and literally 5 hadn't had a meal in weeks. 原来结果是这个孩子被赶出了他的房子并且几周没吃过饭了。
　　He said he was "... so relieved that somebody finally asked me." 他说他“终于放心了，有人问我了。”
　　Somehow, we've created a health care system where asking a patient "Are you hungry?" 曾经，我们创建了一个医疗保健系统，这个系统中会询问病人：“你饿了吗？”
　　is so far outside the bounds of what counts as health care that we mostly fail or forget to ask altogether; 这个问题目前不在医疗保健的范畴之内，以致我们大部分都不会或忘记发问；
　　where doctors lament 6 a hospital's "no third sandwich policy," 那里医生会哀叹医院“没有第三块三明治政策，”
　　meaning that if you're a hungry patient in the ER, 意味着如果你是个急症室的饥肠辘辘的病人，
　　you can have only two free sandwiches, but as many MRIs as the doctor orders; 你只能有两块免费的三明治，但遵循医嘱的核磁共振成像可没少；
　　where, in 2016 in the state of Texas, they spent 1.2 billion dollars on the medical costs of malnutrition 7 instead of on access to healthy food; 2016年的德克萨斯州，他们在营养不良的医疗上花费了12亿美元而不是提供健康的食物；
　　where a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program stratifies hungry patients, 医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心对饥饿的病人分门别类，
　　so that some get access to food and some get information about food, 这样一些人可以获得食物，一些人则获得食物的信息，
　　with the justification 8 that doing nothing for hungry patients is standard and usual care in this country. 不为饥饿病人做任何事情的理由是这个国家标准和通常的护理方式。
　　And that's just food. The same is true for housing, electricity ... 而且这还只是食物。同样的情况也存在于居住、电力...
　　The bottom line is, health care may be changing, but not by enough and certainly not fast enough. 不论怎样，医疗保健可能在改变，但还不够而且显然不够快速。
　　We ask the wrong questions of our doctors, of our patients, but also of our citizens. 我们对我们对医生，我们的病人，还有我们的公民问了错误的问题。
　　We ask about and argue about health care, but how do voters think about health? 我们询问并争论医疗保健问题，但选民们是如何思考健康的呢？