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.

Input: Consider Input: 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.

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


Input: Consider Input: "The New England Patriots might wish this entire business of under-inflated footballs would vanish in a puff of smoke, but it’s a boon for physics teachers who have found themselves suddenly relevant in the world of sports. Patriots coach Bill Belichick, a self-declared non-scientist, held a pre-Super Bowl news conference where he attempted to explain why a football inflated indoors would lose pressure after being used outside. ""When the footballs are delivered to the officials' locker room, the officials were asked to inflate them to 12.5 pounds per square inch. What exactly they did, I don’t know,"" Belichick said. ""When the footballs go out on to the field into game conditions ...  That’s where the measurements would be different than what they are, possibly different, than what they are in a controlled environment."" Belichick said when Patriot staffers tested this, they found that the balls ""were down approximately one-and-a-half pounds per square inch."" There are too many unknowns to resolve Deflategate, as this flap is called. But we couldn't help but give Belichick's main assertion the PunditFact treatment. The question in this case is what physics tells us about Belichick’s point. Could conditions outside (basically temperature and humidity) bring down the pressure of a football by about 1.5 pounds per square inch? A quick recap The Patriots advanced to the Super Bowl on Jan. 18, 2015, by defeating the Indianapolis Colts 45-7. But by the next day, the most interesting number wasn’t the point spread, but the inflation pressure of the Patriots’ footballs. Under NFL rules, each team provides 12 balls, and about two hours before the game, an official verifies that they are inflated to the regulation pressure range of 12.5 to 13.5 pounds per square inch. At half-time, the NFL re-checked the Patriots’ footballs -- reportedly at the request of the Colts but there’s a bit of conflicting information on this -- and found 11 of the 12 were under inflated. By how much? That’s unclear. Some reports say by 2 pounds per square inch. Others say while one ball might have measured that low, the rest were only about 1 pound under. One other essential variable: The temperature on game day was around 50 degrees. No one knows the exact inside temperature. Most people assume it was about 70 degrees. Doing the math After Belichick spoke, ABC News turned to Bill Nye, the popular explainer of all things scientific, to assess the coach’s claim. ABC played up Nye's verdict that Belichick's words ""didn’t make any sense,"" but from the video, it sounds as though Nye was talking about Belichick's claim that rubbing the footballs would change the pressure, not the impact of temperature. CBS Sports relayed a tweet from another science luminary, physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson who also expressed skepticism. ""For the Patriots to blame a change in temperature for 15 percent lower-pressures, requires balls to be inflated with 125-degree air,"" Tyson wrote. CBS reported that ""Every 10 degree drop in temperature (F) results in about .2 PSI loss in a football."" According to CBS, that meant the weather would account for just a 0.4 pound of pressure loss, and tied that conclusion, loosely, to an Ohio State University physicist. We’ll get back to that CBS story (and its flaws) in a bit. On the other side of the ledger, USA Today interviewed Bowdoin College physics professor Dale Syphers who declared that a drop from room temperature in the 70s down to 40 degrees would reduce the pressure in a football by 1.3 pounds per square inch. The Daily Beast turned to the chair of the Physics Department at Boston College who said that with a 30 degree drop in temperature -- 75 down to 45 degrees -- you would expect the ball pressure to fall by by 1.54 pounds per square inch. Finally, the world of physics is divided between the theoretical physicists and the experimentalists. The physicists cited in the news worked with formulas. HeadSmart Labs, a private firm in Pittsburgh, tested actual footballs. It found that footballs inflated at 75 degrees, then cooled to 50 degrees lost 1.1 pounds of pressure. The lab took one more step. Since it was raining on game day, the staff dampened the balls. This led to a drop of an additional 0.7 pounds of pressure for a total of at least 1.8 pounds per square inch. The physics teachers come off the bench Enter Robert Hilborn of the American Association of Physics Teachers. The Harvard-trained physicist showed in detail how a law of physics, the ideal gas law, applied to the Patriots’ footballs. When a gas cools, it contracts. The ideal gas law helps us put numbers to that relationship between pressure and temperature. Math alert: We’re going to show you pretty much everything, so you can do it yourself at home. ""As almost every chemistry and physics student knows, the ideal gas law tells us that Pf = Pi (Tf/Ti),"" Hilborn wrote. The final pressure Pf equals the initial pressure Pi times the final temperature divided by the initial temperature Tf/Ti. Plugging in the numbers is simple, so long as you keep two things in mind. First, the pressure isn’t the pressure you see on your pressure gauge. It’s that amount plus the pressure of the atmosphere that’s all around you. It might feel counterintuitive, but when a football comes off the assembly line, before it's ever pumped up, it actually has an internal pressure that you wouldn't notice because it's the same as the pressure we always ignore. That's the pressure that comes from all those miles of air in our atmosphere pushing down on us. That pressure averages around 14.7 pounds per square inch. When you pump air into the football, you are adding pressure on top of the 14.7 that are already there. In Hilborn's math, you'll see he's added in the atmospheric pressure. The other key step is to measure the temperature in Celsius and count from absolute zero. That’s the Kelvin scale. Hilborn used a starting temperature of 70 degrees and a final temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit and a starting pressure of 12.5 pounds per square inch. ""Those numbers give us 27.2 psi for Pi, 294 K for Ti, and 283 K for Tf resulting in Pf = 26.2 psi for the total pressure and a corresponding gauge pressure of 11.5 psi, about 1 psi below the NFL lower limit."" In short, taking the balls outside would bring the pressure down 1 pound per square inch. Hilborn then accounted for the rain that day. Cooling the moist air inside the footballs would shed another 0.2 pounds per square inch. ""Combining the air temperature change effect with that of water vapor gives us a total of 1.2 psi, not too far from the figure of 1.4 psi given in one of the early NFL statements,"" Hilborn wrote. Hilborn’s results are pure math, and they are largely in line with the test results from the lab in Pittsburgh. The results in other news reports We were troubled by the CBS item that came up with a much lower number of 0.4 pounds per square inch due to a lower outdoor temperature. But when we called Prof. Michael Lisa, the Ohio State University physicist quoted in the CBS article, Lisa said, ""CBS got it wrong."" Lisa sent us this chart that you can download showing that for each 10 degrees drop in temperature, pressure drops 0.5 pounds. (The chart’s different lines show that the higher the starting pressure, the greater the impact of falling temperature.) We found that news reports that undercut the Patriots’ explanation used a high number for the loss of pressure. CBS said the footballs lost 2 pounds of pressure. Ditto for a Toronto Sun article. If it turns out that there really was a loss that large, then those arguments hold up. For the moment, we are simply assessing whether the physics back up what Belichick said and he used the 1.5 pound figure. Lisa also affirmed Hilborn’s analysis. ""That AAPT guy did a nice job,"" Lisa said. Nevertheless, Hilborn himself said no one should rush to judgment. ""A conservative conclusion is that temperature changes alone can account for much of the under-inflation,"" Hilborn wrote. ""But until more accurate information is available about the preparation of and measurement of the footballs’ air pressure, we should not assert that conclusion with a great deal of certainty."" The NFL is investigating and at some point, all the numbers might be known. Or not. Hilborn told PunditFact that the accuracy of the pressure gauges is unclear. One number that will be of interest is the starting pressure for the Colts’ footballs. It's possible they may have deflated as well, but stayed within the legal limits. Our ruling Belichick said that moving the footballs from indoors to outdoors could explain the loss of about 1.5 pounds per square inch of pressure. Experimental and mathematical results are in that ballpark. Lab tests said air temperature alone could bring down the pressure by 1.1 pounds. The ideal gas law predicted a 1 pound loss. The rain that day would explain at least another 0.2 pound shift and possibly as much as 0.7. We lack firm numbers on the actual pressure drop in the Patriots footballs, as well as precise information on the starting and ending temperatures. Within the limits of what the physics alone can tell us at this point, the math gets us pretty close to what Belichick said. With allowances for the uncertain data."

Output: "Atmospheric conditions could push a football’s pressure ""down approximately one-and-a-half pounds per square inch."


Input: Consider Input: "An independent analysis says Colorado's proposed universal health care system would have $38 billion in projected revenues -- dwarfing Fortune 500 companies like McDonald's, Nike and American Express. The report, by the Colorado Health Institute, is a primer on the potential benefits and drawbacks of ColoradoCare, a proposed state health care cooperative that would resemble single-payer health care systems like those in Canada and Europe. Coloradans will decide whether to create the giant system when they vote on Amendment 69 in the November election. ""Supporters estimate ColoradoCare would have $38 billion in annual revenues,"" the report states. ""If it were a private company, ColoradoCare would rank about 80th in the Fortune 500, just behind New York Life Insurance and ahead of well­-known companies such as American Express, 21st Century Fox, 3M, Sears, Nike and McDonald's."" Need more perspective? Colorado's annual state budget is $25.7 billion. We examined the statement that ColoradoCare’s projected revenues would be $38 billion and overshadow huge corporates. We found that the number is right in theory, but it depends on the federal government signing off on a first-of-its-kind health system for Colorado. How ColoradoCare would work First, here’s how ColoradoCare would work. If approved by voters, Colorado would be the first state to have a health care system where every resident has coverage financed by taxes instead of private insurance premiums, according to the Colorado Health Institute report. The institute estimates that 83 percent of Colorado’s population -- about 4.4 million people -- would be eligible for primary health insurance coverage through ColoradoCare. The remaining 17 percent of residents would continue to be covered by federal programs, including Medicare and the Veterans Administration. People would still choose their own health care providers, but ColoradoCare would pay the bills. Members would not have to pay an annual deductible, but they would have co-pays. The system would be controlled by a powerful 21-member board, elected by the system’s members in seven districts across the state. The governor and legislature would have no role, except to select an interim board until elections were held. An economic analysis by supporters says ColoradoCare would produce a net savings of $4.5 billion for residents and businesses by eliminating private insurance profits, streamlining paperwork and more efficiently delivering services. Opponents say the proposed amendment will be costly, it won't impact rising health care costs and it will hamper the state’s ability to attract and retain medical providers. The ColoradoCareYes campaign confirmed the proposed nonprofit health system is projected to have $38 billion in annual revenues. About $25 billion would come from state taxes. Employers would pay 6.67 percent in payroll taxes and employees would contribute 3.33 percent, for a total of 10 percent of the payroll. Self-employed people would pay 10 percent of their net income. The projected $25 billion in tax revenues have been independently confirmed by an economist at the Colorado Legislative Council, which provided a revenue impact report to the state board that reviews the language and legality of an initiative's ballot title and summary. For the rest of its annual revenues, supporters say ColoradoCare would apply for waivers from the federal government, so that ColoradoCare takes over the state roles and funding for Medicaid ($10.8 billion) and the Affordable Care Act ($700 million). Out-of-pocket costs for medical care and dental care would each provide an estimated $1 billion. But experts said obtaining the federal waivers is a challenging process -- and there’s no certainty of success. Beginning on Jan. 1, states can apply for a federal waiver to create innovative, alternative health care programs that would take the place of the Affordable Care Act -- while staying true to its goals. ColoradoCare would have to pass a rigorous federal review, showing it would deliver coverage that's at least as comprehensive and affordable as the so-called Obamacare program, while covering the same amount of people. ColoradoCare would have to stay ""revenue neutral"" and not cost more than the existing federal program. Federal waivers, funding ‘not a sure thing’ What are the chances of obtaining the waivers and the federal funds that go with them? ""Definitely, I would say it’s not a sure thing,"" said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation, who specializes in health care reform, an issue she worked on for both the administrations of President Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton. Yet, if approved by voters, ColoradoCare would be among the first states to seek an Affordable Care Act (ACA) waiver and bring ""the most far-reaching health care reform in any state since the ACA,"" according to the Colorado Health Institute report. ""There's advantages for being the first one in the door. It lets you kind of establish the framework for the debate that's going follow,"" Pollitz said. Medicaid waivers aren’t automatic, either, though several states, including Colorado, have received the so-called 1115 waivers -- named for a Section 1115 of the Social Security Act ""1115 waivers require a lot of work and back-and-forth between the state and the federal government and compliance with a number of criteria, including budget neutrality,"" said Elisabeth Arenales, the health care program director for the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. The center hasn't reviewed or taken a position on Amendment 69. ""States have to be careful in how they negotiate those waivers because they're essentially locked into a spending contract, and they need to be very mindful that they're both not costing the federal government any additional money but also that their projections of state spending are accurate,"" Arenales said. The ballot initiative’s language makes it clear that getting the waivers are a do-or-die matter for ColoradoCare. No waivers means no program. Under the heading ""Termination of ColoradoCare’s Operations,"" the initiative states: ""If the board determines that ColoradoCare has not received the waivers, exemptions, and agreements from the federal government sufficient for its fiscally sound operation, the board shall: (a) shut down operations and return unused funds; (b) notify the governor of the State of Colorado of ColoradoCare's inability to function."" ColoradoCareYES campaign spokesman Owen Perkins acknowledged the waivers’ critical importance. ""ColoradoCare doesn't move forward without that,"" he said. But, at the same time, he said it should be reassuring to Colorado voters that health care system couldn’t launch until it passes a high bar set by the federal government. ""I think everybody in Colorado should be thankful that there is that vigorous standard,"" Perkins said. ""That ensures that we can't go into this willy-nilly. It could pass with a 75-percent vote and everything look perfect, but if it doesn't receive that waiver, it's not going to happen."" He stressed that the architects of ColoradoCare have done their homework. The Colorado Health Institute is accurate in saying, given ColoradoCare’s projected $38 billion in revenues, if it were a private company is would rank about 80th on the Fortune 500 just behind New York Life Insurance ($38.7 billion in revenues). It’s revenues would be larger than American Express  ($35.9 billion), Twenty-First Century Fox ($31.86 billion), 3M ($31.82 billion), Sears ($31.2 billion), Nike ($27.8 billion) and McDonald’s ($27.4 billion). On paper, the ColoradoCareYES campaign’s projected state tax and federal funding revenues add up to $38 billion. Our ruling The Colorado Health Institute analysis said the Colorado universal health care system would have a projected $38 billion in revenues, larger than major corporations. The numbers seem to add up if everything with ColoradoCare goes according to its supporters’ plans. The revenues would be larger than some big companies. However, the health care plan has a make-or-break need to obtain federal waivers that would allow it to assume the roles of state Medicaid and Affordable Care Act programs. No waivers means no deal. The statement is accurate but needs additional information.


Output: ColoradoCare would have higher revenues than McDonald’s.