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.

[Q]: Paragraph: While likely to be welcomed by green groups, some do not think it goes far enough to protect remaining forests in the tropical archipelago. The moratorium, which covers around 66 million hectares (254,827 square miles) of primary forest and peatland, was first introduced in 2011 and has been renewed regularly as part of the efforts to reduce emissions from fires caused by deforestation. “The president signed an instruction on stopping new permits and improving primary forest and peatland governance,” Forestry and Environment Minister Siti Nurbaya Bakar said in a statement. Bakar said the Aug. 5 presidential instruction mandated that ministers, governors and other officials could not issue new permits within the moratorium area. Indonesia has had one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world, with more than 74 million hectares (285,700 square miles) of rainforest - an area nearly twice the size of Japan - logged, burned or degraded in the last half century, according to Greenpeace. The moratorium decision comes after authorities declared an emergency in six provinces on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo where smoke from outbreaks of forest fires have started causing acute respiratory infections. The air pollution in Palangkaraya in Central Kalimantan on the island of Borneo was getting worse and had forced authorities to restrict school hours, said Arie Rompas, a Greenpeace Indonesia forest campaigner. Rompas said the permanent moratorium still did not provide adequate protection for primary forest and peatland in the long run, blaming a lack of punishment and loopholes in regulations. “The policy should not be via a presidential instruction because it is the weakest among legal instruments,” he said. According to the ministry’s data, the area mapped out for the moratorium had been changed from 69.1 million hectares initially to 66.1 million hectares recently. “If it’s a permanent one, changing the map should not be allowed anymore,” he said, adding that Greenpeace had found that  permits for palm-oil, pulp wood, logging and mining had been granted on 1.6 million hectares from the original moratorium. Claim: Indonesia president makes moratorium on forest clearance permanent.
[A]: Indonesian President Joko Widodo has issued a permanent moratorium on new forest clearance for activities such as palm plantations or logging, the environment minister said on Thursday.


[Q]: Paragraph: "In the wake of the fatal police shooting in Ferguson, Mo., Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn was interviewed for nearly an hour on Wisconsin Public Radio about the incident and its implications. At one point during the Aug. 20, 2014 interview, Flynn told host Kathleen Dunn ""there are many reasons why (police) uses of force are dramatically down, and the main one is training."" Then, alluding back to Ferguson, the chief added: ""It's an extraordinarily rare event. But the fact is, (in) 2012, there were 12,197,000 arrests in the United States, OK? And there were 410 uses of deadly force. Now that is, I think, three-thousands of a percent. So, it’s still an extraordinarily rare event."" In the comparison Flynn uses, there is one police killing in 0.00003 percent of all arrests -- an even tinier fraction than he suggested. But expressed another way, the 410 is an average of more than one police killing per day. So, what about the two figures themselves: Are they accurate and do they account for all of the people who are killed by police? Renewed focus Around the country, attention to the use of deadly force by police was heightened after Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old, was shot to death on Aug. 9, 2014, in Ferguson, a St. Louis suburb. In Milwaukee, residents held rallies to raise questions about the Brown case and about the April 2014 death of Dontre Hamilton, a 31-year-old who was shot multiple times by a police officer during a struggle in Red Arrow Park in downtown Milwaukee. (In Milwaukee, there was one police killing of a citizen in 2012, four in 2013 and two through late August of 2014, the Police Department told us.) PolitiFact National rated Half True a claim by conservative talk show host Michael Medved that ""more whites than blacks are victims of deadly police shootings."" The claim ignored the fact that there are more than five times more whites than blacks in America. And our colleagues rated as False a statement that an unarmed black person is shot by a police officer every 28 hours. The report that had been cited by CNN pundit Marc Lamont Hill looked at all deaths, not just those of unarmed individuals. And it rolled in some deaths that did not involve police officers. Flynn’s claim Flynn, who headed the police departments in Arlington, Va., and Springfield, Mass., before becoming Milwaukee’s chief in 2008, is known nationally for his use of data. When we asked for evidence for Flynn’s claim, a Milwaukee police spokesman cited two FBI reports. Both are from 2012, the most recent full-year statistics available. There were 12,196,959 arrests across the country in 2012, which means the figure Flynn used -- 12,197,000 -- was rounded up only slightly. The highest numbers of those arrests were for drug abuse violations, driving under the influence and larceny-theft. There were also 410 cases of justifiable homicide in 2012, according to the FBI, which defines justifiable homicide as the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty. For example: A police officer responding to a bank robbery alarm who shot a suspect after the suspect fired at the officer. But that doesn’t taken into account all police killings of citizens. FiveThirtyEight.com, a news website devoted to data analysis, recently reported that the 410 is a minimum figure. The numbers are self-reported by local police agencies and not audited, not all police agencies report those figures to the FBI and the number doesn’t include homicides that weren’t ruled justifiable. The FBI totals are likely an undercount for another reason, criminologists told us. Researchers who examine police killings of citizens within large metropolitan police departments often find that the number of such incidents recorded by the departments are higher than the number of justifiable homicides reported by the FBI. But the criminologists also noted Flynn’s comparison is one legitimate way to measure the frequency of police killings. Our rating Flynn said that in 2012, there were nearly 12.2 million arrests and ""410 uses of deadly force"" by police in the United States. The Milwaukee police chief correctly quotes official FBI statistics on arrests and justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers, although it appears the 410 is an undercount of the number of people killed by police. To comment on this item, go to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website." Claim: "In 2012, there were nearly 12.2 million arrests and only 410 ""uses of deadly force"" by police in the United States."
[A]: "Flynn said that in 2012, there were nearly 12.2 million arrests and ""410 uses of deadly force"" by police in the United States. The Milwaukee police chief correctly quotes official FBI statistics on arrests and justifiable homicides by law enforcement officers, although it appears the 410 is an undercount of the number of people killed by police."


[Q]: Paragraph: "It’s the question-du-jour about the new health care law: Are people going to be able to keep their health insurance if they like it? President Barack Obama has several times said yes. But cancellation notices coming in the mail to policyholders tell another story. The contrast between Obama’s promises and what’s playing out in America has led to a fierce political war of words about who lied, who knew what and when, and how Americans will have to deal with the ramifications. Former Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod and Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn debated the issue Monday on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Coburn: ""You're no longer eligible to buy your own plan, which was the No. 1 promise that the president made to the American people. You cannot get what you had."" Axelrod: ""Most people are going to keep their own plans, senator, and you know that."" Coburn: ""That’s not true."" Moments later, Axelrod made his point again: ""The majority of people in this country, the vast majority of people in this country, are keeping their plan. People who are uninsured are going to have choices they never had before."" In this fact-check, we wanted to dig into what’s happening to the American health insurance system to see what policies are being canceled, how many, why and how you might be affected. A good starting point is to see how Americans get their insurance right now. Using census data, the Kaiser Family Foundation finds that in 2012, a little less than 50 percent of the public got their coverage through an employer-based plan. That is, a business negotiates a contract with an insurance company and offers health coverage to its workers. The second largest group, about 30 percent, gets insurance through either Medicare, Medicaid or both. A third group of people with insurance, about 6 percent, buy policies directly from insurance companies. This is called the individual market. (The remainder of Americans, around 16 percent, are currently uninsured.) The health care law that was passed in 2010 made changes to all three legs of the health insurance stool, but the biggest changes came in the individual market. Before the health care law was passed, the individual market was widely considered a mess. Insurers could turn you down for pre-existing conditions, and none of the insurance was standardized, so if you bought a policy, it wasn’t always crystal clear what you were getting. The law’s goal always had been to get these people into standardized plans that cover a defined list of benefits. As a result, some existing policies did not meet standards set by the new health care law. This is why people in this group may be seeing cancellation notices. Kaiser estimates that 15 million people are in the individual market. They are likely to have a very different experience from the ""vast majority"" cited by Axelrod. In New Jersey and Florida, hundreds of thousands of people have received cancellation notices and more are popping up across the country. It’s unclear how many people in the individual market will be forced to change their plan. And what happens to people who are will vary. People can buy another plan from the same company or shop around. Some of them will be eligible for government subsidies and some will not. This group is where the disruptions are most likely. Another group of people -- about 90 million -- are covered through through Medicare or Medicaid. While the Affordable Care Act does make changes, most notably in something called the Medicare Advantage program, they are not being moved into new coverage plans. That leaves the nearly 150 million people who get their insurance through the plans their employer offer. Those plans could change. But it’s tough to say how substantially, and how much as a result of the health care law. Part of that is because plans change every year. Still, some companies are making changes to bring costs down. For example, UPS is telling their employees that if their spouse can receive health insurance through a different employer, UPS will no longer offer them coverage. That certainly could mean people are not keeping their health care plan. How much of the blame should be shouldered by the health care law is a different matter. We asked a variety of experts to comment on the literal accuracy of Axelrod’s statement. For the most part, regardless of their opinion of the new health care law, they gave Axelrod the benefit of the doubt. ""It’s probably true -- at least for next year,"" said Gail Wilensky, the former head of Medicare and Medicaid under President George H. W. Bush. ""Most employers aren’t going to do anything about the insurance they are offering for 2014 because of the Affordable Care Act."" ""He is absolutely right,"" said Bob Laszewski, a health insurance consultant and head of Health Policy and Strategy Associates. But Laszweski also said Axelrod was intentionally diverting attention from the real problems taking place in the individual market. Gerard Anderson, director of the Center for Hospital Finance and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said, ""I would make the same comment that David Axelrod makes but without any real facts. The people with large employers are not really being impacted by the (health care law) and neither are the Medicare and Medicaid recipients."" Sabrina Corlette, program director at at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, echoed Anderson’s point. For Ted Marmor, a professor of health policy at Yale University, rejected Axelrod’s claim, largely because no one has the hard evidence to back it up or refute it. ""No one has the data to be sure,"" Marmor said. ""Axelrod has no authority for his claim. It is a hope."" But Marmor is among the minority of the experts we consulted. ""It's simply true,"" said Dan Mendelson, CEO of Avalere Health, a Washington health consulting group. ""Most of the lives are in the large corporate customer base and we're seeing virtually no dropping of coverage there."" What does it mean to keep your plan? In the view of some analysts, if the plan offered by an employer changes, it is not the same plan and this would make Axelrod wrong. Chris Conover, a critic of Obamacare and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, said the Affordable Care Act requires that every plan offer certain minimum benefits, such as free preventive care. It also allows children up to age 26 to stay on their parents’ plan. Those and other rules drive up premiums and lead to employers offering different plans. Conover said millions of people ""actually have had to purchase more expensive coverage even if they were perfectly happy with their old coverage."" Axelrod’s office takes a different view. We contacted them and his staff pointed us to a 2013 survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. Based on responses from 966 organizations, including firms both small and large, the survey found that 94 percent were definitely or very likely to continue to offer coverage. In that sense, the majority of Americans would still get insurance through their employer. Still, in the survey, about half of the companies estimated Obamacare would raise costs in the range of 1 to 4 percent. Many businesses, in the range of 30 to 40 percent overall, planned to increase the employee share of premiums, raise their deductibles and in other ways shift costs to workers. But it is important to remember that cost and risk shifting has been with the country for a long time. The Kaiser Family Foundation annual survey of employer plans reports that in the past 10 years, the average share of premiums paid by employees has gone up and the fraction of workers in high-deductible plans has risen steadily since 2006, reaching one fifth of the people in the study in 2013. Richard Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group of insurance companies, said the impact of the health care law takes place within an insurance marketplace that has been far from static. ""There have been year to year changes to policies,"" Zirkelbach said. Of all the factors that drive those changes -- rising medical costs, changes in the health of the people in the insurance pool, and government regulation -- Zirkelbach believes the Affordable Care Act rules are having the largest impact as employers look to 2014. Zirkelbach points especially to the minimum requirements for every insurance plan. The employee benefit survey reports that about three quarters of all plans meet all minimum requirements and need no further changes. Our ruling Axelrod said the vast majority of people are keeping their health care plans. That’s certainly what the 2010 health care law intended. The law was crafted largely to leave in place the health care delivery systems for people who get health insurance either through their employer (about 50 percent of people with insurance) or through the government-managed Medicare or Medicaid programs (about 30 percent). Some changes may be occurring in the employer market that would stop people from keeping the health care plans they have. But the bigger issues are in the so-called individual market, which accounts for about 6 percent of Americans who now have health care. The health care law, in essence, raises standards that will make many plans offered in the individual market obsolete. Experts told us there is no precise data to determine how many people will be forced to change health care plans, but they generally agreed the number will be small this year. The broad consensus is that, for the time being, most people will see changes in their coverage and what they pay for that coverage consistent with changes they have seen with their insurance over the past decade." Claim: The vast majority of people in this country are keeping their (health insurance) plan.
[A]:
Axelrod said the vast majority of people are keeping their health care plans. That’s certainly what the 2010 health care law intended. The law was crafted largely to leave in place the health care delivery systems for people who get health insurance either through their employer (about 50 percent of people with insurance) or through the government-managed Medicare or Medicaid programs (about 30 percent). Some changes may be occurring in the employer market that would stop people from keeping the health care plans they have. But the bigger issues are in the so-called individual market, which accounts for about 6 percent of Americans who now have health care. The health care law, in essence, raises standards that will make many plans offered in the individual market obsolete. Experts told us there is no precise data to determine how many people will be forced to change health care plans, but they generally agreed the number will be small this year. The broad consensus is that, for the time being, most people will see changes in their coverage and what they pay for that coverage consistent with changes they have seen with their insurance over the past decade.