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.

Paragraph: "During a recent appearance on The Daily Show, guest host John Oliver and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., engaged in a lively exchange on health insurance. One of the issues they discussed was the high cost of health insurance. Paul, an eye surgeon, is strongly opposed to President Barack Obama’s health care law. During the interview, Oliver pressed him on how to get more Americans signed up for insurance. Paul told Oliver that according to the most recent statistics,  ""85 percent of people had insurance, so 15 percent didn't. So what you need to do is look at who are the 15 percent, and why don't they have insurance? Of the 15 percent who didn't have insurance, half of them made more than $50,000 a year. Why didn't they buy insurance? Because of the expense. They were young healthy people."" In this fact-check, we’ll check whether the cost of insurance is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans. In a separate report, we’ll look at his claim that half of the uninsured made more than $50,000 a year. Survey data consistently shows that cost is the biggest barrier to uninsured Americans obtaining coverage. When the Kaiser Family Foundation’s June 2013 health tracking poll asked uninsured respondents for the main reason they didn’t have health insurance, a plurality of 40 percent cited cost. The second-biggest factor, at 26 percent, was related to employment, such as being unemployed or having a job that doesn’t offer health insurance. These two reasons aren’t mutually exclusive -- someone could have told the pollster that their lack of a job was the biggest reason but also find cost to be a barrier to obtaining insurance. The only answer in the poll that suggests the respondent doesn’t face a cost obstacle is ""doesn’t need insurance,"" which was the answer of only 11 percent. In another survey, the 2011 National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers asked, ""Which of these are reasons you stopped being covered or don’t have health insurance?’’ Respondents were allowed to choose more than one reason. In this survey, too, a plurality -- 42 percent -- cited cost. Three other reasons cited are compatible with cost being an obstacle -- a lost job or a change in employment (26 percent), an employer that didn’t offer insurance (11 percent) and ineligible due to age or leaving school (9 percent). Just 6 percent cited ""other,"" which included ""didn’t want or need coverage,"" among other answers. ""The cost of insurance is a major reason why people are uninsured -- Sen. Paul is right about that,"" said Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. ""People without access to employer-sponsored coverage have a hard time affording it on their own, and that accounts for most of the uninsured."" Our ruling Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice." Claim: Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense.
"Paul asked, ""Why didn't (uninsured Americans) buy insurance? Because of the expense."" Survey data supports him. A plurality of respondents in major surveys of the uninsured specifically cite cost as a barrier, and relatively few indicate that going uninsured is a voluntary choice."

Paragraph: "As Donald Trump amps up attacks on the Clinton Foundation, Democrats are pointing out that Trump himself has given to the nonprofit he now calls a pay-to-play operation. Recently released emails between Hillary Clinton’s aides when she was secretary of state and officials at the Clinton Foundation have demonstrated that some foundation donors did get access to Clinton, though there’s no evidence of direct favors. Addressing the topic on NBC’s Meet the Press, Barack Obama’s former campaign manager David Plouffe noted the Clinton Foundation’s work on HIV/AIDS and malaria and Trump’s own ties to the charity. ""The Clinton Foundation, I think it’s a universal agreement, has done remarkable work around the world. I think Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000 to the foundation,"" he said. Plouffe is right that Trump gave at least $100,000 to the foundation, a fact that Trump and his campaign readily admit. One caveat: It appears that the money came through Trump’s own foundation, not directly from Trump. The Clinton Foundation lists Donald J. Trump as a contributor with a cumulative lifetime donation amount between $100,001 to $250,000. It’s not clear if Trump himself made a personal contribution, but tax forms show that the Donald J. Trump Foundation (which Trump controls) donated $100,000 to the foundation in 2009 and reserved a table at the Clinton Foundation gala for $10,000 in 2010. Trump’s daughter Ivanka is also listed as a donor who gave between $5,001 and $10,000 and her father-in-law, Charles Kushner, gave between $250,001 and $500,000. Trump’s gift amount places him in the top 0.2 percent of the foundation’s donors. Most of its 300,000 donors (85.5 percent) gave less than $250. Breaking it down by dollar amount, however, Trump’s total contribution isn’t that big. We estimated that the foundation has received at least $800 million in donations, over 70 percent of which came from gifts of $1 million or more. In 2009, the Trump Foundation gave $926,750 to some 40 organizations (page 18). The Clinton Foundation received one of the largest gifts that year, matched or surpassed only by the Arnold Palmer Medical Center Foundation ($100,000), the New York Presbyterian Hospital ($125,000) and the Police Athletic League ($156,000). Altogether, the Trump Foundation has donated $5.5 million to 298 charities between 2009 and 2013 according to the nonprofit’s tax forms, Forbes found. Trump did not make any personal contributions to his foundations during this time. (Money for the Trump Foundation in these years came from others and from investment income.) Trump doesn’t deny that he donated to the Clinton Foundation that he now calls a criminal enterprise. During the first GOP primary debate in August 2015, Trump voluntarily brought up his giving to the Clinton Foundation when asked about his previous donations to Hillary Clinton. ""When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me,"" Trump said. ""With Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn’t have a choice, because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn’t know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world."" For the record, the Clintons did attend Trump’s third wedding to Melania Knauss, but that occurred in 2005, four years before the $100,000 donation. A few months later, Trump gave pretty similar answers when he was asked to explain the Forbes article on his charitable giving record in late January. ""I did give to the Clinton Foundation. What I didn't know is they'd be using it for private aircraft and things like that. The Clinton Foundation was helping with Haiti and with lots of other things and I thought it was going to do some good work. So, it didn't make any difference to me,"" he said on Jan. 31’s Fox News Sunday. ""Again, I was a businessman and it was my obligation to get along with everybody, including the Clintons, including Democrats and liberals and Republicans and conservatives."" Our ruling Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka’s father-in-law) as a contributor. It’s important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation. Claim: "David Plouffe Says ""Donald Trump himself contributed $100,000"" to the Clinton Foundation."
"Plouffe said, ""Donald Trump himself gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."" Tax records show the Donald J. Trump Foundation gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, and spent an additional $10,000 for a table at a Clinton Foundation gala the following year. The Clinton Foundation also lists Donald J. Trump (as well his daughter Ivanka and Ivanka’s father-in-law) as a contributor. It’s important to note that Trump made the donation through his foundation, not out of his personal income. But Trump himself acknowledges the donation."

Paragraph: "A salmonella outbreak traced to California chicken processing plants recently prompted Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., to raise a pet issue on MSNBC: antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The federal shutdown was limiting government’s ability to track infection, she said. But then she pointed to a deeper issue: ""the overuse and ruination of antibiotics."" An advocate for tougher requirements for farm use of such drugs, Slaughter told host Joy-Ann Reid that she’s been ""trying to save antibiotics for persons — for human beings."" ""Eighty percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock every single day, and it's creating a terrible problem of resistant bacteria,"" she said. Eighty percent is an awfully big number, and we were curious: Do livestock consume the bulk of the nation’s antimicrobial drugs? It’s an important question, because according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wide use of antibiotics in food-producing animals ""contributes to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food-producing animals."" Emergence of resistant bacteria means if you get infected with bacteria from the food you eat, it might be harder to fight that infection with antibiotics. Drug resistance may be contributing to higher hospitalization rates in the recent salmonella outbreak, for example, the Los Angeles Times reported. Here’s how it works, according to the CDC: Ranchers give animals antibiotics, which kills off or suppresses susceptible bacteria, but allows antibiotic-resistant bacteria to thrive. Those resistant bacteria may be transmitted to people through the food supply, such as by eating undercooked salmonella-tainted chicken. Since the bacteria are resistant to some antibiotics, the infections may be harder to fight, causing ""adverse human health consequences."" So CDC ""encourages and supports efforts to minimize inappropriate use of antibiotics in humans and animals."" You’re probably aware of this effort in humans — it’s why doctors are discouraged from giving their patients antibiotics to treat nonbacterial infections such as cold and flu. Widespread use of antibiotics when they’re not required helps bacteria develop defenses to the drugs in a sort of microscopic arms race. It’s also the reason the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asked farmers to phase out certain antibiotics important to human medicine when used merely to promote growth in animals. (The industry says this accounts for a small amount of antibiotic use. The FDA says it’s hard to say.) So, back to the 80 percent number. It turns out it has been a popular talking point since 2010 among those who advocate for restricting use of antibiotics on farms. That’s the year the FDA released newly required data on sales of antibiotics by manufacturers for food-producing animals. The FDA didn’t release sales information on antibiotics for human use, but pointed to national projections from IMS Health, a Connecticut company that compiles proprietary health data. The numbers let folks compare the millions of kilograms of drugs sold by manufacturers for use by food-producing animals (13.1 million kilograms) in 2009 with those sold for use by people (3.3 million kilograms). The 13.1 million kilograms of antibiotics sold for animals was 80 percent of the total amount of drugs sold for both humans and animals, which was 16.4 million kilograms. We should note this comparison doesn’t account for all antibiotics sold in the United States. For example, it doesn’t count antibiotics sold for household pets. A researcher with the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health’s Center for a Livable Future first did the math for a 2010 blog post that’s been widely cited. (The most recent reports reveal a similar proportion, as calculated by the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming.) Pharmaceutical company lobby groups such as the Animal Health Institute, though, have cried foul. It says the number is ""wrong and misleading, for several reasons,"" and cites the FDA. The FDA has indeed offered a ""caution regarding comparisons of human and animal antibacterial drug sales data."" It repeated some of those cautions in a 2012 letter to Slaughter herself. But while it offers a series of caveats about drawing ""definite conclusions"" from ""direct comparisons"" about the drug sales data  —  such as differences in dosages between different drugs and in the sizes of human and animal populations — it confirms both sets of sales data essentially measure the same thing. Both show the volume of antibacterial drugs, by weight, being sold to various outlets from the manufacturer. So, while they don’t offer a direct estimate of human or animal use, they do offer a comparison of sales by manufacturers for both groups. In 2011, the FDA provided the IMS Health sales estimates directly to Slaughter, describing the sales numbers as ""a surrogate for human use to compare to antibacterial drug use in animals."" We should note that about a third of the antibiotics used in food-producing animals are ionophores, a type not used in humans. (The agriculture industry argues this means they have nothing to do with antibiotic resistance in humans; Lawrence at Johns Hopkins says they may still contribute.) If you remove ionophores from the sales data comparison, the proportion of antibiotics that go to food-producing animals vs. humans drops to around 70 percent. There are also also plenty of limits, as the FDA points out, on the usefulness of the publicly released sales data to inform public policy on antibiotics on farms. They don’t illuminate the reasons animals get the drugs (to promote growth? to treat infection? both?). They don’t specify how the antibiotics are administered (injection? food?). The FDA’s asking for comments on how it might release more of the information it collects from animal drug companies, and says it will update reports from previous years with that new data. That might include, for example, a detail it confirmed to Slaughter’s office in a 2011 letter — that nearly all antibiotics reported for animal use to the FDA were delivered in food and water, as opposed to by injection. Meanwhile, the industry uses the current lack of detail to downplay the usefulness of the statistic, even as it fights efforts to gather and release more information. Sales data is ""not at all useful for understanding the benefits or the risks of using antibiotics to keep animals healthy,"" Ron Phillips of the Animal Health Institute told PolitiFact. Others disagree and argue that the data is actually quite revealing. ""There is some uncertainty in these data, but not enough to escape the fact that the vast majority of antibiotics in this country are used in food animals, not to treat sick people,"" wrote Robert Lawrence, a doctor who directs the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins. Slaughter, meanwhile, is sponsoring two bills, the Delivering Antimicrobial Transparency in Animals Act and the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, to require more detailed monitoring and to limit the use of antibiotics to sick animals. Among those lobbying against both: the Animal Health Institute. Our ruling Slaughter said ""80 percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock."" The statistic comes from a comparison of FDA sales data for food-producing animals and private sales data for humans since 2009 — not all antibiotics sold in the United States. A letter from the FDA to the congresswoman confirms that most of the drugs for livestock are consumed in food and water. That means the percentage ""fed"" to animals may not be quite as high as 80 percent, though it would be close. Slaughter could have said more clearly that of all the antibiotics sold for use by people and livestock, 80 percent are for animals. But she was close." Claim: Eighty percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock.

"Slaughter said ""80 percent of the antibiotics in this country are fed to livestock."" The statistic comes from a comparison of FDA sales data for food-producing animals and private sales data for humans since 2009 — not all antibiotics sold in the United States. A letter from the FDA to the congresswoman confirms that most of the drugs for livestock are consumed in food and water. That means the percentage ""fed"" to animals may not be quite as high as 80 percent, though it would be close. Slaughter could have said more clearly that of all the antibiotics sold for use by people and livestock, 80 percent are for animals. But she was close."