Wow – this is news! Having neverbeen a formal debater – I am absolutely
fascinated.

If I am not mistaken, the definition of public health that I used in the
article came directly from the law.  I’ll need to review it more carefully
though when I have a bit more time.  Also, you may want to look at the
Public Health Service Act or check out the CDC (Centers for Disease
Control) or the American Public Health Assoication – you may find
definitions there. Most public health officials would define public health
more broadly.  Keep me posted!

I help you On Fri, April 18, 2008 12:39 am, Litman, Anna wrote:
> Thanks so much for your quick reply.
>
> Yes, you are very famous in the national high school debate community
> right now…I have traveled around the country this year to at least 15
> different tournaments this year and everyone knows about this argument
> (it’s actually called the “Schlosberg Argument”). So, all the debaters on
> my team were really excited to hear that I got a chance to talk to you.
>
> Debaters use different definitions for what is called a “topicality”
> argument—they say an affirmative case that sends condoms to Africa, for
> example, should lose the debate simply because it is outside the bounds of
> the topic and it isn’t responsive to the question posed by this year’s
> debate Resolution (which, according to some of them, only asks about
> treatment assistance and not prevention assistance). Since the term
> “public health” has no clear definition and can’t be found in any
> dictionary, it is difficult to determine what it actually means. So,
> Negative teams, instead of debating the merits of a specific Affirmative
> proposal, will sometimes argue that doing things like sending condoms to
> Africa is not allowed by this year’s resolution.
>
> It is very hard to find an article saying “public health” means only
> treatment, so some teams decided to take your article, which seemed to be
> talking about only the specific application of public health assistance in
> this immigration bill, and try to apply it to the debate topic about
> Africa.
>
> This is a version of the article:
>
> http://www.healthlaw.org/library/attachment.67503?print
>
> And the part that everyone references when making this argument is:
>
> All aliens, regardless of immigration status, are eligible for public
> health assistance funded through sources other than the Medicaid program.
> The public health assistance is limited to immunizations with respect to
> immunizable diseases and for testing and treatment of symptoms of
> communicable diseases whether or not such symptoms are caused by a
> communicable disease. As with emergency Medicaid, providers are not
> required to, and should not, verify the citizenship, nationality and
> immigration status of applicants for these services.
>
> I’m glad you agree that it is important to focus on the prevention aspects
> of public health assistance as well as treatment—this will help us a lot.
> Again, thanks so much for taking the time to clarify this!
> Anna
>
> ________________________________________
> From: cschlosberg@ascp.com [cschlosberg@ascp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:34 PM
> To: Litman, Anna
> Subject: Re: question about your “Immigrants’ Access to Public Health”
>  article
>
> Well – I had no idea that anything I wrote would become the subject of
> such intense debate.  That article was written years ago and I am not sure
> I could even lay my hands on a copy.  can you PDF it to me so I can look
> at what I wrote and thentry to answer your question.  BTW – even without
> reviewing the article, I can tell you that from my perspective public
> health always must be defined more broadly than treatment.  Treatment is
> the act of interveneing to address illness or a specific condition.
> Public health emphasizes keeping people healthy by preventing disease
> (e.g. distributing condoms, addressing sanitation issues, rats, nutrition
> etc.)
>
> PS.  The interesting thing about disease is most don’t discriminate.  If
> we don’t broadly address prevention (including among people who are
> undocumented), then our legal status will not be able to protect us from
> communicable diseased that spread through populations.
>
> Good luck and let me know who wins!
>
>
>
> On Thu, April 17, 2008 9:55 pm, Litman, Anna wrote:
>> Hi Ms. Schlosberg,
>>
>> My name is Anna Litman and I am a Junior at Greenhill High School in
>> Dallas, Texas. I am on the debate team, and the topic for this year is:
>>
>> Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially
>> increase its public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa.
>>
>> One of the difficulties in debating such a resolution is that the term
>> “public health” means different things to different experts. There seems
>> to be a consensus in most literature that public health assistance
>> includes things besides treating a disease with medicine; for example,
>> sending condoms to Africa in order to prevent the spread of AIDS. Many
>> debaters, I feel, have perverted the intent of the article you wrote
>> that
>> talked about public health assistance in the context of immigrants
>> (“Not-qualified Immigrants’ Access to Public Health and Emergency
>> Services
>> After the Welfare Law”). They claim that you attempted to define the
>> phrase “public health assistance” in general, not in the specific
>> application of the bill. They conclude that the term public health can
>> only be applied to treatment and does not include prevention-focused
>> methods, such as disease surveillance and sending condoms. So, I was
>> hoping you could clarify- did you intend to define the word in general,
>> or
>> just in the context of that specific bill?
>>
>> Thanks so much for your help.
>>
>> Anna