Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The unveiling of former President Barack Obama’s official portrait on 12 February 2018 also introduced many Americans to artist Kehinde Wiley for the first time as well, as opening the door to late-breaking controversy over some of Wiley’s earlier work. Wiley, who has described his own visual style as “bombastic, syrupy, and garish,” is celebrated in the contemporary art world for his large-scale portraits of black and brown men and women striking heroic poses modeled on those of aristocrats in classic European paintings. Two portraits in particular, both of them modern takes on the biblical story of Judith beheading Holofernes and featuring elegantly-dressed black women brandishing the severed heads of white women, suddenly turned controversial in the context of Wiley’s new role as a presidential portraitist. Images of the paintings were shared on social media with comments stating or implying that their content is racist: This what is confusing to me … you can’t have Confederate flags … you take down historical statues because they are racist but the 44th POTUS picks the guy who painted these pictures to paint his presidential portrait and that’s just fine? Maybe I’m missing something? #tcot pic.twitter.com/9RhYCGPQK7 — Jeannie-ology (@jeanniology) February 12, 2018  So a racist ex-President selects a racist artist to paint his picture. Anyone surprised? Artist Who Painted Obama’s Official Portrait Known For Painting Blacks Beheading Whites https://t.co/JarXVYUQ27 — American Real News (@USArealnews) February 13, 2018  In a post on right-wing blog TheGatewayPundit.com, Kehinde Wiley was described as being “known for” and “having a great fondness for” painting black people beheading white people: Both beheading pieces are titled “Judith beheading Holofernes”, referencing a story in the Book of Judith, which involves a beautiful woman who seduces an invading general before he is able to destroy their land, gets him drunk, and then decapitates him. Typical artists from the Rennaissance [sic] era have placed Judith in the role of a scriptural savior, “a type of the praying Virgin or the church or as a figure who tramples Satan and harrows Hell.” Given the historical context and how Wiley recreated it in his works, is hard to interpret his use of this theme as anything other than a blatant statement of racism; black women are the powerful angels of the earth, conquering the white devils. Can you imagine for a second if George W. Bush, or any other former president, decided on a painter who was famous for depicting white people killing black people to paint his official portrait? It’s hard to imagine, right? Yea, that’s because it’s disgusting and backward. It is not the case, however, that Wiley was “famous for depicting black people killing white people” before politically motivated commentators chose to make it so. Far from it. Of the scores of paintings the artist has produced, only the two based on the biblical beheading story depict such a scene. They generated very little controversy before Wiley’s portrait of Obama was publicly unveiled. That the strong, couture-clad black females in the paintings are depicted in the immediate aftermath of decapitating white women is not incidental. As with many works of art, this was meant to be provocative (“I think at its best what art is doing is setting up a set of provocations,” Wiley said in a 2015 interview). A 2012 article on the web site of the North Carolina Museum of Art (NCMA) supplies some needed context: Known for his monumental portraits of young black men, placed in historical poses and settings appropriated from Old Master paintings, Kehinde Wiley critiques the racism of art history while also commenting on contemporary street culture and masculine identity. Reinventing classical portraiture and questioning who is represented in the portraits found in museums worldwide, Wiley states, “The whole conversation of my work has to do with power and who has it.” Judith and Holofernes is from Wiley’s most recent body of work and his first series of paintings to feature female subjects. Wiley uses “street casting” to find his models — walking city streets and asking ordinary people if they would pose for a portrait. He met the model for this painting, Treisha Lowe, at Fulton Mall, a pedestrian shopping street in downtown Brooklyn. This painting references a specific art-historical work, a 17th-century painting by Giovanni Baglione, Judith and the Head of Holofernes (1608). The subject is taken from the apocryphal Old Testament Book of Judith, in which a Jewish town is under attack by the Assyrian army led by the general Holofernes. Judith, a widow from the town, goes to Holofernes under the pretense of helping him defeat the Jews. After he falls asleep, she cuts his head off with his own sword, and the town defeats the army. Wiley translates this image of a courageous, powerful woman into a contemporary version that resonates with fury and righteousness. “It’s sort of a play on the ‘kill whitey’ thing,” Wiley said in a 2012 interview with New York Magazine. The operative word is “play.”  What is all too easy to miss on a cursory glance is the deeply conceptual nature of these works. We turn again to the NCMA’s commentary: Wiley takes obvious artistic license with the story — Holofernes is represented by a woman’s head, and Judith wears a gown designed by Riccardo Tisci of Givenchy. This new rendition can be interpreted on many different levels, including racial and gender identity and inequity, the representation of women throughout art history, and society’s ideals for beauty. In Wiley’s words, “I am painting women in order to come to terms with the depictions of gender within the context of art history. One has to broaden the conversation . . . This series of works attempts to reconcile the presence of black female stereotypes that surrounds their presence and/or absence in art history, and the notions of beauty, spectacle, and the ‘grand’ in painting.” In contrast to the blunt literalism of those who prefer to interpret these paintings as a celebration of racial violence, art critic Walter Robinson writes that Wiley’s take on Judith and Holofernes “suggests, with a jovial brutality, that Judith would prefer to be done with white standards of beauty.” If, as Wiley has said, his intent as an artist is to be provocative, he can consider himself successful. Claim: Kehinde Wiley, the artist who painted former President Barack Obama's official portrait, also produced a pair of paintings depicting black women decapitating white people.
[EX A]: We reached out to Mr. Wiley for comment, but did not receive a reply.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: A cataract was removed on Dec. 10 from the left eye of a 3-year-old western lowland gorilla who lives at the San Diego Zoo Safari Park, the park announced Monday. The gorilla, named Leslie, was given a muscle blocker to keep her still while a team that included vets along with anesthesiologists and an ophthalmology team from UC San Diego Health removed the cloudy lens and replaced it with an artificial lens that should last for life. The operation was performed at the San Diego Zoo Global’s Paul Harter Veterinary Medical Center. Cataract surgeon Chris Heichel, who led the team and has performed thousands of operations, said it was his first on a gorilla. “Fortunately, the similarities between the anatomy of human and gorilla eyes are great enough to allow us to safely navigate the procedure without complication,” Heichel said in a statement released by the park. “The remainder of the eye appeared to be in excellent health, indicating exceptional vision potential for the rest of Leslie’s life.” Cataracts can occur naturally with aging. But given that Leslie is a youngster, her problem more likely stemmed from an injury, either from a fall while practicing her climbing or from “an overly rambunctious play sessions with other young gorillas in her troop,” the park said. Leslie will need antibiotics and steroids to prevent infection and inflammation, but she is already back with the troop at the park. Claim: California gorilla treated for cataract.
[EX A]: A team of eye experts has operated on an unusual patient — a gorilla.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "In February, amid the heated debate over health care reform, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced legislation to bar insurance companies from implementing ""unfair"" hikes in health plan premiums. In a March 8, 2010, New York Times story, Feinstein explained why she cares so much about the issue. ""We are the only industrialized nation that relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care,"" Feinstein said. ""I believe, fundamentally, that all medical insurance should be not-for-profit."" We thought it would be worthwhile checking if Feinstein was right that no other nation ""relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care."" As it turns out, some other countries do have private, for-profit insurance companies operating in their health care sector, and there are some indications that this sector is growing. But the business, legal and regulatory environment in which they operate is quite different than it is in the United States. A good example is the Netherlands. Dutch plans may be either non-profit or for-profit, as in the U.S. But children are fully covered using public funds, and premiums for adults are set at 50 percent of the expected costs, with the remainder paid through a national ""risk equalization fund"" -- essentially funds collected from the public at large. As a result, health insurers in the Netherlands aren't really able to compete for adult customers on price. By law, insurers must accept and renew all applicants, and a basic package of services must be offered. By contrast, U.S. insurers are free (for now, at least) to reject applicants on the individual market if they have pre-existing conditions, and insurers offer a panoply of plans with different premium levels and benefit packages. So, in the Netherlands, even the for-profit insurers don't typically make much of a profit on their basic health care lines. Meanwhile, in Switzerland, any profit that insurers make on basic services must be plowed back into reducing premiums. So why even call these companies for-profit? In many of the European countries with a for-profit health insurance sector, the companies make their profits not on basic health care -- the kind that Feinstein specifically referred to -- but by up-selling their health care customers on supplemental health coverage, such as dental care, eyeglasses, cosmetic surgery or more luxurious hospital rooms, or other product lines altogether, such as life or homeowner's insurance. ""There's no developed country where insurers can make a profit on basic coverage,"" said T.R. Reid, the author of The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care. ""Their mission is to pay for health care, not to pay investors."" Maggie Mahar, a fellow who specializes in international health care policy at the Century Foundation, agrees. ""I usually say that the U.S. is the only country in the developed world that has chosen to turn health care into largely unregulated, for-profit enterprise,"" she said. Technically, for-profit companies do provide basic medical care in countries such as the Netherlands, and there's enough of it going on to say that such countries ""rely"" on those insurers to serve that need. But the profit these companies make -- or at least the vast majority of it -- is made from lines of business other than basic health care. Because there is no official definition of ""basic health care"" in the U.S. system, it is hard to calculate exactly how much profit American insurers are making off basic services. But whatever it is, most experts expect that it is higher than the margins being made on basic health care by for-profit insurers in other countries. We believe that Feinstein is right that the U.S. for-profit insurance industry's role in basic health care is fundamentally different than what goes on in other countries, and that this outweighs her technical error in saying that no other country relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care." Claim: We are the only industrialized nation that relies heavily on a for-profit medical insurance industry to provide basic health care.
[EX A]:
Feinstein says U.S. is only nation to rely heavily on for-profit insurers for basic health care