user: 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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: The study tracked about 20,000 severely obese patients with Type 2 diabetes. Those who had weight loss surgery had a 40 percent lower chance of developing a heart attack or stroke in the five years following surgery compared to those who got usual care with diabetes medicines or insulin. For every 1,000 patients in the study who had surgery there were roughly 20 heart attacks or strokes compared to 40 such events per 1,000 who got regular care. More than 30 million Americans have diabetes, mostly Type 2 where the body loses the ability to produce or use insulin to turn food into energy. Other research has shown obesity surgery can reverse and even prevent diabetes. Taken together, it means doctors should discuss weight loss surgery more often, said study co-author Dr. David Arterburn of Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle. Doctors usually mention insulin and pills, “but it’s not always brought up that weight loss surgery is another available treatment option,” Arterburn said. Researchers analyzed records from four U.S. health care systems: HealthPartners in Minnesota and Kaiser Permanente in Washington state, Northern California and Southern California. Results were published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study can’t prove cause and effect because patients weren’t randomly assigned to get surgery. The researchers tried to match patients for gender, age, blood sugar levels and other factors. But other things they didn’t account for could have contributed to the surgery patients’ better results. Everyone in the study had a BMI, or body mass index, of at least 35. For instance, someone who is 5-foot-8-inches and weighs 230 pounds has a BMI of 35. Of the more than 5,300 who had surgery, most had gastric bypass, the most common type of stomach-shrinking operation. Some had gastric sleeve or gastric band procedures. The rest, nearly 15,000 people, had usual care. Obesity surgery can cost $20,000 to $25,000. Insurers are increasingly covering it, but some impose strict limits. The new findings suggest insurance coverage should be expanded for the right patients, Dr. Sayeed Ikramuddin of the University of Minnesota wrote in an accompanying editorial. Surgery is thought to help by affecting hormones, gut bacteria and other substances that affect how the body handles insulin and blood sugar. Weight loss without surgery also helps, but is difficult for many people to achieve. Most weight loss surgery today is done through small incisions. The dangers are similar to other surgeries, including a small chance of life-threatening complications, and some people need to have their surgeries repeated. ___ Follow AP Medical Writer Carla K. Johnson on Twitter: @CarlaKJohnson ___ The Associated Press Health &amp; Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Obesity surgery may lower heart attack danger in diabetics.

Answer: Obesity surgery may dramatically lower the danger of heart attacks and strokes in patients with diabetes, new research suggests, reinforcing evidence that benefits extend beyond weight loss.


Question: Paragraph: "During this election season, Republicans have been hammering Democrats over cuts they say were made to Medicare as part of the health care bill. Now, in a television ad in the Kentucky Senate race, Democrat Jack Conway is turning the tables, attacking Republican Rand Paul over Medicare deductibles. Here's the transcript of the ad, released Sept. 28, 2010:  Narrator: ""More from Rand Paul."" Footage of Rand Paul: ""The real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible."" Man: ""A $2,000 deductible?"" Man: ""Rand Paul wants us to pay $2,000 just to get Medicare?"" Woman: ""That's crazy."" Woman: ""I can't afford that."" Footage of Rand Paul: ""The real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible."" Man: ""I don't know what planet he's from."" Woman: ""Rand Paul is off the wall with the $2,000 deductible."" Man: ""He knows we can't afford that."" Woman: ""The more we hear about Rand Paul, the worse it gets."" Conway: ""I'm Jack Conway, and I approved this message."" The grainy footage of Paul is real. It comes from a talk that Paul, an ophthalmologist and longtime libertarian, gave to the Center-Right Coalition, a conservative group, in Lexington, Ky., on June 19, 2009. A longer excerpt from Paul's talk has been posted on YouTube. To see whether Conway's ad takes Paul's remarks out of context, we transcribed the portion of his speech in which he talks about Medicare. ""What's the problem in medicine?"" Paul began. ""No price fluctuation. If you're over 65 and go to a doctor in this country, you pay the exact same price with every doctor in the whole country. So when they want to blame ... that on capitalism, we have to be smart enough and say, 'We don't have capitalism. We already have socialism.'"" He continued, ""Medicare is socialized medicine. People are afraid of that because, 'Oh, you'll say you're against Medicare.' No, I say we have to do something different. We can't just eliminate Medicare. But we have to figure out how to get more to a market-based system. It's counter-intuitive to a lot of people, but you have to pay for things if you want prices to come down. So you really need higher deductibles. And the real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible, but try selling that one in an election. But that's the real answer is, you have to pay for things. And when you do, but you also get rid of price controls. So you raise the deductible, you get rid of price controls, and you allow more competition. And you may have to allow more competition from other parties. Nurse practitioners, we already have some. Pharmacists. There have to be ways to allow medicine to come down."" His comment was no one-time slip of the tongue. The Conway campaign released another ad with footage of at least five other occasions in which Paul spoke publicly about his preference for high deductibles for Medicare, sometimes even invoking the same $2,000 figure. Indeed, Paul has been caught on camera being open about the political hazards of making such a proposal. In the Lexington talk featured in the first ad, Paul immediately followed his mention of the $2,000 figure with the addendum, ""but try selling that one in an election."" And in the follow-up ad, a clip shows him acknowledging the political risk with striking frankness. ""The hard part,"" he said, ""is how do you present this on national TV? I mean, what's going to happen to me in a statewide race if I tell people I think the Medicare deductible is going to be higher? Am I going to be booted out of the room? I don't know. I'm willing to take a risk because I think it's the right thing to do, and because the other answer is to become just like Canada."" We did not receive a response from the Paul campaign for this article, but the campaign has responded through TV ads. On Oct. 7, the liberal website Talking Points Memo published a side-by-side comparison of the Paul campaign's two response ads and found subtle but noteworthy differences. In the first, the Paul campaign says that Paul ""never supported higher Medicare deductibles."" In the second, the ad was changed to say that Paul ""doesn't support higher Medicare deductibles."" Had they stuck with the first ad, it would have been undermined by a half-dozen film clips. Paul refined his policy toward Medicare during an appearance on Fox News on Oct. 6. Paul said that he did not want to impose deductibles on current Medicare beneficiaries but rather on future beneficiaries, possibly starting with those who are currently 55 or younger. So even Paul now acknowledges that he thinks Medicare deductibles are worth considering. But does Conway's ad fairly portray the views Paul had espoused at the time? They come close, but we do offer one caveat. We think that the general impression Conway's ad gives -- and in particular the line where the man says, ""Rand Paul wants us to pay $2,000 just to get Medicare?"" -- is that what Paul wants to do is slap seniors with a $2,000 deductible, even though his plan is much more comprehensive. Paul's ideas for Medicare may be good or bad, but the ad is somewhat misleading when it reduces them to a simple $2,000 deductible. That said, we see it as a relatively minor exaggeration. Paul has advocated for a $2,000 deductible in multiple settings." Claim: "Rand Paul ""wants us to pay $2,000 just to get Medicare."

Answer: Jack Conway says Rand Paul backs a $2,000 deductible for Medicare


Question: Paragraph: The heavier the infection, the more likely the women were to deliver younger, sicker infants, the team at Stanford University in California found. “If we could prevent these infections in the first place, or detect them sooner, we might one day be able to prevent some of these premature births,” Dr. Dan DiGiulio, who worked on the study, said in a statement. More and more children are being born prematurely in the United States, with 12 percent of births coming before the 37th week of gestation. Premature babies are vulnerable to breathing problems, underdeveloped organs, infections and cerebral palsy. DiGiulio’s team looked for the DNA of germs in amniotic fluid samples collected from 166 women in pre-term labor at the Detroit Medical Center between October 1998 and December 2002. They used this method and standard laboratory cultures to determine that 25 of the 166 samples were infected with either bacteria or fungi. They also found at least one unknown organism that could be a new species. All 25 of the women with infected amniotic fluid went on to deliver their babies pre-term, while 53 of the women with no infections were able to stop their labor. Now the team is working to see if infections can be detected before pre-term labor starts, which could lead to new prevention or treatment approaches. Claim: Infections may cause many premature births: study.

Answer:

assistant: Undiagnosed infections may be causing a significant number of premature births, researchers reported on Monday after finding bacteria or fungi in 15 percent of the amniotic fluid samples taken from women in pre-term labor.