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.

Example input: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
Q: Paragraph: In the first sessions of the day, people heard presentations on how activists could work together to push for Medicare for All, a system that would guarantee health care for everyone in the country, including a study on how it to pay the cost. "Only all that we love is on the line," said Nina Turner, a fellow of the Sanders Institute, who expressed the fervor for universal health care felt by many at the meeting when she helped kicked off the first session. The meeting was held on the shores of Lake Champlain, an area that a half a century ago was grimy and industrial, but has in part because of Sanders' work as mayor of Burlington in the 1980s been converted into a public park in a vibrant small city with stunning views of New York's Adirondack Mountains. The event is being hosted by The Sanders Institute, a think-tank formed last year separate from the senator's political operations that grew out of the ideas generated during his 2016 presidential campaign. The institute and the meeting have attracted a number of high-profile supporters. Hollywood actors Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon, John Cusack and Cynthia Nixon joined intellectuals Cornel West and Simon Sinek. Elected officials such as Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio are also expected at the meeting, which wraps up Saturday. The health care study released Friday morning that looked at Sanders' 2017 Medicare for All Act. It estimated such a system would save an estimated 9.6 percent over current U.S. health care consumption expenditures, said University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin, one of the authors of the study. It estimates people would use an estimated 12 percent under a Medicare for All system. The savings would come from reducing administrative and pharmaceutical costs and establishing uniform Medicare rates for hospitals. Businesses would save about 8 percent of what they currently pay for employee health insurance. The system would need to raise just over $1 trillion in new government income to pay for it. Additional government revenue would come from a 3.75 percent sales tax on non-essential items and other taxes on the wealthiest people in the United States. "The biggest winners are going to be middle-class households," Pollin said. People at the meeting did not address the prospects of the plan passing in Congress. The meeting comes as the 77-year-old Sanders is considering his political future. Sanders, who lost the 2016 Democratic nomination to Hillary Clinton, is expected to decide soon whether to launch a second bid for the White House. During a speech Thursday night, Sanders told supporters they had to work harder to convince people of all races, regions and income levels that liberal policies will help them. He also said that there has been a shift in the Democratic establishment which has increasingly embraced his calls for liberal policies such as universal health care and a $15 minimum wage. Claim: Sanders Institute gathering a pep rally for liberal ideas.
A:
Supporters of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders were in Burlington on Friday as part of a three-day pep rally for many of the policy issues, such as universal health care, protecting the environment and economic and criminal justice reform, that defined the Vermont independent during his 2016 run for the presidency.