Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
--------
Question: Campaigning in the early caucus state of Nevada, the 78-year-old Vermont senator said one of the things that disturbed him about Thursday’s debate was that he was hoping “to have a serious discussion about the health care crisis in America.” “I was not pleased that Vice President Biden distorted what Medicare for All is and, in fact, simply parroted the line coming from the health care industry,” Sanders told about 300 people at a town hall meeting at the Carson City Community Center gymnasium. “Apparently the vice president thinks it is just wonderful for people to be paying $1,000 a month ... just for health care premiums. Having deductibles of $4,000 or $5,000 or more — not a problem. Paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs — not a problem. Well, I think those are problems,” he said. Sanders took heavy fire on his single-payer health insurance proposal at Thursday night’s debate in Houston, with Biden and others hammering the Vermont senator for the cost and the political palatability of effectively eliminating the existing private insurance market. The former vice president went hardest at Sanders when the senator argued that the estimated $30 trillion cost over a decade is cheaper than the “status quo,” which he put at $50 trillion — with most of the money being what Americans spend privately on premiums, copays and out-of-pocket costs. Sanders’ argument is that most U.S. households would pay less overall under his system, even if their taxes go up. Biden said that Sanders would effectively be handing Americans a pay cut, arguing that employers who now pay a share of workers’ premiums would pocket that money instead of giving workers raises if the government were to cover all health care costs. Biden punctuated the point with one of the quotes of the night: “For a socialist, you’ve got a lot more confidence in corporate America than I do.” Biden has aggressively defended the Affordable Care Act that was created while he was vice president under President Barack Obama. Biden released a proposal in July to add a “public option” to the 2010 health care overhaul, with expanded coverage paid for by tax increases on the wealthiest Americans. Sanders repeated his refrain Friday that health care is a human right and that Medicare for All would cover every man, woman and child in the country. It requires no premiums, no deductibles and no out-of-pocket costs and would expand Medicare to include such things as dental care, hearing aids and home health care, he said. “It’s not a terribly radical idea because in one form or another it exists in countries all over the world, including Canada,” Sanders said. “Is it free? No. It is funded out of the general fund in a progressive manner.” Sanders said the primary function of the existing American health care system — the costliest in the world — is to make profits for drug and insurance companies. Sanders and a supporter of President Donald Trump — who said he recently lost his insurance and job — initially shouted over each other when Sanders asked for input from the audience. But they eventually put their arms around each other as Sanders asked him to help deliver the message to health care corporations and pharmaceutical drug companies that “the function of health care is to provide quality care to all of these people.” Sanders dismissed others who suggested Medicare for All would prevent people from selecting their own doctor. “You can go to any doctor you want,” Sanders said. “Anybody who tells you Medicare for All limits your choices of doctors are not telling you the truth.” Sanders lost the 2016 Democratic caucuses in Nevada to Hillary Clinton 55% to 45% primarily because of her strength in Las Vegas and Clark County but has maintained fierce support in the key Western swing state. He carried northern Nevada’s Washoe County, where he drew loud cheers later Friday from hundreds of students at an outdoor “College For All” rally on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno. He also planned to campaign Saturday in Las Vegas.

Answer: Sanders accuses Biden of distorting ‘Medicare for All’ plan.


Question: The furor, which erupted in Ireland last month and then spread quickly across Europe, has led to ready meals being pulled from supermarket shelves and damaged people’s confidence in the food on their plate. It also raised concerns over food labeling and the complex supply chain across the European Union, putting pressure on governments to explain lapses in quality control. A fifth of adults said they had started buying less meat after traces of horse DNA were found in some products, according to the poll conducted by Consumer Intelligence research company. “Our findings show that this scandal has really hit consumers hard, be it through having to change their shopping habits or altering the fundamentals of their diet,” David Black, a spokesman for Consumer Intelligence, said. The online poll, conducted on February 14-15, questioned more than 2,200 adults on their spending habits following the horsemeat scandal. It gave no specific figures on how much meat people were buying, focusing only on broader trends. More than 65 percent of respondents said they trusted food labels less as a result. “(Brands) will have to put in place really stringent ways of checking that what’s being delivered and what’s on the label is indeed what’s in there,” Black said. In the month since horsemeat was first identified in Irish beefburgers, no one is yet reported to have fallen ill from eating horse but many supermarkets and fast food chains are already struggling to save their reputations. Governments across Europe have stressed that horsemeat poses little or no health risk, although some carcasses have been found tainted with a painkiller given to racehorses but banned for human consumption. Environment secretary Owen Paterson, who met British retailers earlier in the day for talks on how to restore consumer confidence, said Britain was closely cooperating with European countries to investigate what happened. “Looking ahead, there was absolute determination in the industry to restore confidence in their products,” he said in televised remarks. “We look forward to meeting on a regular basis to absolutely make it clear that when consumers buy a product they get what they bought.”  British retailers now expect the vast majority of tests on processed beef products to be completed by February 22, according to the British Retail Consortium. More than 60 percent of adults surveyed said they would now buy meat from their local butchers, the poll said, while a quarter of adults said they would now buy more joints, chops or steaks instead of processed meat. Michael Suleyman, who owns a family-run butchers’ shop in Brixton, London, said more customers appeared concerned although for now there had not been any difference in sales figures. “We have seen people panicking and asking us lots of questions like ‘where do you get your meat from?’,” Suleyman, 51, told Reuters. “We assure our customers by showing them the meat and mincing it for them in front of their eyes.”  But with inflation running above central bank targets and an uncertain job market, the spending power of British consumers has been eroded in recent years and, for some, buying more expensive meat is not an option. Nearly a fifth of respondents said they wanted buy less processed meat such as ready-meals, but could not afford to. At a London branch of Britain’s biggest retailer, Tesco, which found horse DNA in some of its own-brand frozen spaghetti bolognese meals last week, consumers were still buying meat products. “I’ve got nothing against horse meat,” said Sean Cosgrove, 39, a local government employee. “I think you’re being ambitious if you expect top quality meat in those products anyway.”

Answer: British shoppers saying nay to meat after horse scandal.


Question: "If there was one success story to emerge from the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, it was that more people are getting treated for HIV/AIDS than ever before -- about 17 million by the latest United Nations estimate. Falling drug prices played a key role in helping providers reach this point. But the international health group Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières) warned at a press conference that trade negotiations around the world put future gains at risk. The group said its latest report ""examines multiple global threats to access to affordable treatment, including trade deals which threaten India’s role as the ‘pharmacy of the developing world.’"" Trade is at the center of the U.S. presidential election for its effect on the American work force. But is there more at play? We wondered if it’s true that the next round of agreements, both those that involve the United States and those that don’t, would undermine some large drug makers in India. Why India India matters because thanks to the country’s patent laws, India and generics go together like toast and jam. The rules there make it easier than other places for companies to churn out generic drugs once the patent on the original version runs out. Generics are cheaper than their brand name cousins and if you want to stretch a dollar, you take the generic option. Doctors Without Borders said 97 percent of the drugs it uses to treat people with HIV are generics made in India. That includes medicines for HIV itself, as well as for diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis that hit people with suppressed immune systems. Doctors Without Borders is worried less about the drugs it uses today and more about the ones it’s counting on in the future. As the number of people coming in for treatment rises, doctors are finding more who don’t respond to the most common, or first-line, medications. Doctors Without Borders is focused on making second-and-third-line drugs more affordable to keep pace with a growing need, and they see India as the place to make that happen. Impact of trade deals Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership gets a lot of attention in the United States, India is not part of it. But it is part of discussions involving the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a mega-regional pact that aims to tie together 16 countries including China, India, Australia, Japan, South Korea and many other Asian nations. The European Union is also seeking a regional trade agreement with India and other Asian countries. Both of those trade negotiations have sought to get India to tighten its patent laws. The United States has too, through a one-on-one process overseen by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The issues that office has raised mirror ones in the big trade deals. The USTR’s latest report criticizes India’s patent laws, saying ""the pharmaceutical industry in particular faces a host of challenges related to intellectual property rights."" What do U.S. trade negotiators not like in particular? For one, India is reluctant to grant new patents for a drug or blend of drugs built around medications that already enjoy patent protection. These so-called secondary patents extend the time for the drug maker to enjoy exclusive production rights. That translates into a chance to charge higher prices. American officials also don’t care for India’s rules on clinical trial information. When someone invents a drug, they have to prove it’s safe and effective. That proof is in the trial reports. India lets generic drug makers rely on the original clinical trials. One way to extend the exclusive right to make a drug is to bar generic drug makers from using that data for a number of years. Would these sorts of changes make life easier for the makers of new drugs and harder for the generic manufacturers? We found no dispute that they would. We talked with independent experts who think India should stand its ground and those who thought it ought to bend, but either way, they agreed on who wins and who loses. There are good arguments on both sides for protecting the profits of companies that invent new drugs, versus making drugs more affordable. We take no position on the larger question of where the right balance point falls. We're focused only on the claim that large trading partners want to move Indian law in favor of the inventors of new drugs. Lee Branstetter is a professor and trade specialist at Carnegie Mellon University. He thinks Indian law ought to change at the expense of the generic companies. ""In the short run, this will constrain the profit opportunities for the generic producers,"" he told us. Srividhya  Ragavan, a professor of law at Texas A&M, thinks India’s laws strike the right balance as they are. She told us she sees the U.S. position as ""an effort to weaken India’s generic drug industry."" We found any number of articles that reached the same conclusion. But just because Branstetter and Ragavan see eye to eye on how these policy shifts would undermine generic drug makers, that doesn't mean they agree on what this means for the availability of low-cost drugs. Ragavan told us ""the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and EU’s trade negotiations, are all targeting India’s generic drug industry much to the detriment of access to medication to the poor people."" Branstetter said that’s unlikely and highlights an important feature in the overarching trade rules of the World Trade Organization. The escape hatch Branstetter said based on what he’s seen in other countries (he cited Peru as an example) he doubts that would happen. But even if it did, he said, a part of the WTO code -- the Doha Declaration on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement -- gives countries the chance to override a patent that limits a drug’s availability. Branstetter calls it an escape hatch. ""Any member state could declare we have a public health emergency,"" Branstetter said. ""Then, they can force the company that holds the patent to licence the manufacture of that drug to a domestic or foreign drug producer, who would provide it at an agreed price."" Branstetter notes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership specifically requires any country that signs it to accept that Doha declaration. Countries have taken this step before. At the height of the AIDS crisis in the mid 2000s, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ghana, Mozambique and many others issued what are called compulsory licenses to get affordable HIV/AIDS drugs to their citizens. Still, Rohit Malpani, director of policy of the Doctors Without Borders- Access Campaign, told us that in recent years, the number of compulsory licenses has fallen off. ""Even if countries have the right to use the safeguard and can use them they do not,"" Malpani said. He suggested several reasons, including a lack of political will and pressure from the United States, the EU and the drug companies. Our ruling Doctors Without Borders said that trade deals threaten the capacity of Indian generic drug makers to produce the next round of HIV drugs. We found that trade negotiations, whether part of large regional trade agreements or unilateral discussions between the United States and India, have language that work against India generic drug makers. They push India to be more ready to grant patents for drugs that are extensions of  drugs that already enjoy patent protection. And they want India to bar generic drug makers from relying on the clinical trial data produced by the inventor of the drug. Both measures would make patents last longer and give the drug companies more time to charge higher prices. None of the articles we read or experts we reached doubted this result or that this would undermine the generic drug makers. Our experts disagreed on whether this would reduce access to critical drugs. The trade deals do no favors for India’s generic drug makers."

Answer:
"Trade deals threaten ""India’s role as the pharmacy of the developing world"" for new HIV medicines."