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: "When it comes to health care, state Senate hopeful Dan Gecker says the U.S. is in a dubious league of its own. ""Of the 25 wealthiest nations, we’re the only one that doesn’t provide basic health coverage,"" Gecker, a Democrat who serves on the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, said during an Aug. 18 candidates’ forum. Gecker is seeking the 10th District Senate seat that long has been held by Republican John Watkins, who is not seeking re-election. Also running is Glen Sturtevant, a Republican who serves on the Richmond School Board; Marleen Durfee, an independent who is a former Chesterfield supervisor; and Carl Loser, a Libertarian from Powhatan County. Gecker, in his comment, was referring to universal coverage, in which all citizens get national help in paying for health costs. We wondered if he was right about about the United States’ exceptional status among the wealthiest nations. Gecker pointed us to a report last year issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 34 nations -- mostly with industrialized economies -- seeking to improve trade. The report says only two OECD countries -- the U.S. and Mexico -- do not offer universal care. A chart in the study shows that all of the other OECD nations provide coverage for more than 90 percent of their people.. The roster of OECD nations, however, does not translate to a list of the 25 wealthiest countries. Gecker also directed us to the World Bank’s ranking of the wealthiest nations based on each country’s gross domestic product divided by its population -- a figure called GDP per capita. About two-thirds of the nations on the World Bank’s 25-richest list belong to the OECD. We sought to compare that ranking with a list of all nations that provide universal health care. We found two organizations that try to keep tabs on nations that provide universal coverage. One is the New York State Department of Health, which compiled a 2011 list to give medical providers guidance on billing practices when they treat foreign patients. The other resource is a 2010 study by researchers in the United Kingdom and the U.S. examining universal health care around the world. Among high GDP-per-capita nations, universal care coverage is the norm. Only three of the 25 wealthiest -- the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Qatar -- weren’t listed as having universal health care. The embassy for Qatar told us that the country does provide universal health care. Saudi Arabia is listed as providing universal health care in a June 28, 2012, story from The Atlantic magazine. We reached out to the Saudi Arabian embassy several times to confirm that’s the case, but did not hear back. A 1998 study published in the Journal of Family Community Medicine says ""Saudi Arabian policy is to provide free, comprehensive and universal health care services to all citizens."" The final source Gecker cited is a 2012 op-ed by David de Ferranti, former vice president of the World Bank, and Julio Frenk, the former dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, about universal health care coverage. ""Except for the United States, the 25 wealthiest nations have some form of it (universal coverage),"" de Ferranti and Frenk wrote in their op-ed. We got a similar take from two other health care analysts we contacted. Andrea Feigl, a visiting scientist at Harvard who co-wrote the 2010 U.K.-U.S. report, told us in an email that ""The United States is still on its way towards UHC (Universal Health Coverage), and it is the last developed country to do so."" The World Health Organization said in a September 2014 report that the United States is ""currently the only high-income country without nearly universal health-care coverage."" Our ruling Gecker said that ""of the 25 wealthiest nations, we’re the only one that doesn’t provide basic health coverage."" Gecker was referring to rich nations that provide coverage to all of their citizens. We can’t say definitively that the U.S. is the only one that doesn’t provide universal coverage, but evidence strongly points that way." Claim: Of the 25 wealthiest nations, we're the only one that doesn't provide basic health coverage.
[A]: "Gecker said that ""of the 25 wealthiest nations, we’re the only one that doesn’t provide basic health coverage."" Gecker was referring to rich nations that provide coverage to all of their citizens. We can’t say definitively that the U.S. is the only one that doesn’t provide universal coverage, but evidence strongly points that way."


[Q]: Paragraph: The U.N. agency is seeking to balance the need to ensure China continues to share information about the virus while also giving sound scientific advice to the international community on the risks, according to several public health experts and a Western diplomat who tracks the WHO’s work. The WHO has declared five global emergencies in the past decade, including the ongoing Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Doing so can hurt host countries because it may lead to flight cancellations and travel or trade restrictions, dragging on the economy. In the latest case, the WHO declined to declare China’s coronavirus a public health emergency of international concern(PHEIC) twice last week, although its Emergency Committee was split “50-50” over whether to do so. “What was lacking for them to declare an international emergency were deaths abroad and human-to-human transmission outside of China,” said the Geneva-based diplomat following the agency. “If there was proof of human-to-human spread among the ‘imported’ cases, the panel would lean toward another finding.”  WHO spokesman Christian Lindmeier declined to comment beyond what he told a news briefing earlier on Tuesday. He restated that the WHO’s criteria for a global emergency include a “serious or unusual” health situation that affects other countries and may require a coordinated international response. In reply to a question, he added: “It is not ‘wildly spreading’ outside of China.”  While the vast majority of the 4,500 or so confirmed cases and all 106 deaths so far have been in China, cases in Germany, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan where the virus has spread person-to-person have heightened concerns. “As information is coming in, it seems to be confirming our worst fears,” Lawrence Gostin, university professor at Georgetown Law in Washington, DC, told Reuters. “So I do believe that the WHO is going to have to declare an emergency and is going to have to take the lead ... You can’t leave this to China.”  The WHO’s 16-member expert panel is being “kept in the loop” and could be reconvened at any time to reassess the outbreak. “Just because of rising numbers in China now this would not automatically trigger an Emergency Committee,” Lindmeier told the briefing. A declaration would lead to boosting public health measures, funding and resources to prevent and reduce global spread. It could include recommendations on trade and travel, although the WHO generally tries to avoid disruptive trade restrictions. The Emergency Committee deliberations are secret and its members have been told not to speak about their debate, several WHO officials told Reuters. WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Chinese President Xi Jinping met in Beijing on Tuesday to discuss how to protect Chinese citizens and foreigners in areas affected by the virus and “possible” evacuation alternatives, Lindmeier said. China has agreed that the WHO can send international experts there as soon as possible to increase understanding of the new coronavirus and guide the global response to the outbreak, the WHO said at the end of Tedros’ two-day visit. Some experts believe the Geneva-based health agency is in a difficult position, having drawn fire in the past for acting either too quickly or too slowly. “Essentially the WHO is between a rock and a hard place,” said Jeremy Farrar, an expert in infectious disease epidemics and director of the Wellcome Trust global health charity. Farrar noted that the organization was criticised for having called an early emergency in 2009 for the H1N1 flu pandemic, which proved mild, and then for being too late in declaring the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014. Claim: WHO weighs science and politics in global virus emergency decision.
[A]: Most of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) criteria for declaring a global emergency have been met, but it is awaiting clear evidence of a sustained spread of the new coronavirus outside China before doing so, some experts and diplomats said.


[Q]: Paragraph: The 36-count indictment made public Wednesday said Seattle Barrel and Cooperage used a hidden drain to pump caustic wastewater directly into the King County sewer system. Seattle Barrel refurbishes used industrial and commercial barrels and drums. Part of that process involves washing the barrels in a corrosive solution. In a written statement provided by its attorney, Harold Malkin, Seattle Barrel blamed a former employee who was fired nine months ago. The company said it did not encourage or permit that worker’s actions and that it will contest any criminal liability for them. The former employee has not been charged. The indictment names Seattle Barrel owner Louie Sanft, whose grandfather founded the company in 1916. It also names its plant manager, John Sanft, who is Louie Sanft’s cousin. They are due to appear in court Jan. 9. The charges they face include conspiracy, which carries up to five years in prison; lying to Environmental Protection Agency investigators, which carries up to five years; and violating the Clean Water Act, which carries up to three years per count. “At a time when we are searching for strategies to protect Puget Sound and improve water quality for fish and wildlife, we need companies to do their share — not scheme for ways to pollute in private,” Seattle U.S. Attorney Brian T. Moran said in a news release. Federal prosecutors said dumping caustic, high-pH solutions into the sewer system can corrode it and the treatment plant and that the waste can wind up in Puget Sound, home to protected salmon, orcas and other species. Since at least 2009, the company’s permit from King County has prohibited such discharges. In 2012, an employee from the King County Industrial Waste Program reported seeing John Sanft dump oily waste. Over the next several months, the program conducted secret monitoring and discovered that Seattle Barrel was repeatedly dumping high-pH wastewater into the sewer. The county fined the company $55,000, an amount that was reduced to about $17,000 when the company agreed to install an expensive wastewater treatment system. Louie Sanft claimed that the system made Seattle Barrel a “zero discharge” company. That treatment system was not designed or used to handle waste from the 300-gallon (1,136-liter) tank where barrels are washed, however. The tank was supposed to be cleaned by evaporating the water from it, wiping out the remaining residue, sealing the residue in drums and then shipping it to another company for disposal. Prosecutors said the company lied about doing that. Instead, the indictment said, Louie Sanft directed employees to pump the wastewater down an a hidden drain that led to the sewer. An inspection in 2017 revealed irregularities in the company’s handling of wastewater, and covert monitoring showed that the company continued to dump it down the sewer in 2018 and 2019, the indictment said. Meanwhile, Seattle Barrel filed reports with the county certifying that it had not dumped any wastewater. The indictment says Louie Sanft directed the conduct, advising employees to look out for regulators, and that John Sanft sometimes helped. Louie Sanft’s attorney, Angelo Calfo, denied that. He said his client knew King County monitored the sewer line, so it would make no sense for him to direct an employee to dump the tank water there. Further, Calfo said, Louie Sanft paid the employee overtime to properly handle the wastewater because it was a daylong process to evaporate all the water. The only person who stood to benefit from using the sewer was the employee who got fired, the attorney said. “This case is about a former employee who cut corners for his own gain and in violation of company policy,” Calfo said. “Louie had no involvement and did not approve of what the employee was doing.” Claim: Feds: Seattle barrel company used hidden drain to pollute.
[A]:
A century-old Seattle barrel company has been indicted along with its third-generation owner in what prosecutors describe as a long-running pollution conspiracy.