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 story does not mention the cost of mammography (or of follow up tests and treatments) to the individual, or, collectively, to society. And these costs are substantial. Based on the results of this study, 2,500 women would have to be screened every other year for a decade in order to prevent one death from breast cancer. As the story points out, during that same time 1,000 of those women would have at least one false alarm and 500 would undergo an unnecessary biopsy, thus adding to the price tag. On balance, this story does a fair job of describing the benefits of screening mammography as seen in this study. It reports the apparent 10 percent reduction in breast cancer deaths, while also pointing out that because relatively few women in the 50-69 age group die of breast cancer, that reduction can also be described as cutting the 10-year risk of death from 4.4 per 1,000 women to 4 per 1,000. The second statistic helps counteract popular assumptions about how many middle-aged women die from breast cancer. However, the framing of a story and who gets the last word sometimes overwhelms evidence-based explanations earlier in the story. That almost happened with this story, which gives the final word to an advocate of annual breast cancer screening for all women beginning by age 40, which is just the sort of blanket recommendation this latest study calls into question. The story includes a comment that because mammograms detect lumps that would not have become life-threatening, five to 15 women may be treated for every one whose life is saved by treatment. The story oversimplifies the methods used by researchers, saying they compared "women who were similar in most ways, except that one group received mammograms and the other didn't," without explaining that this was not a randomized trial where some women were assigned to screening and others weren't, but rather an observational study that looked at data on women during a 9-year period when Norway phased in mammography region by region. The story does alert readers to some of the limitations of the study: one, that a longer follow-up period might have shown more benefit to screening and, two, that the researchers had no information on whether any of the women received mammograms outside of the national screening program. It's a tossup for us to grade and, as we do in most such cases, we'll give the story the benefit of the doubt. Claim: Mammogram benefits more modest than doctors thought
[A]: However, it does not explain to readers what is new or different about this study compared to earlier reports. Also, the final word in the story goes to an expert who touts benefits of mammography screening that clash with what was seen in this study. By comparing this story with, for example, the Philadelphia Inquirer and WebMD stories, you see how some of the gaps we've identified were addressed by competitors, giving readers a more complete and helpful story.

[Q]: Paragraph: Eggs should be limited to fewer than about four a week, the report says. Dairy foods should be about a serving a day, or less. The report from a panel of nutrition, agriculture and environmental experts recommends a plant-based diet, based on previously published studies that have linked red meat to increased risk of health problems. It also comes amid recent studies of how eating habits affect the environment. Producing red meat takes up land and feed to raise cattle, which also emit the greenhouse gas methane. John Ioannidis, chair of disease prevention at Stanford University, said he welcomed the growing attention to how diets affect the environment, but that the report's recommendations do not reflect the level of scientific uncertainties around nutrition and health. "The evidence is not as strong as it seems to be," Ioannidis said. The report was organized by EAT, a Stockholm-based nonprofit seeking to improve the food system, and published Wednesday by the medical journal Lancet. The panel of experts who wrote it says a "Great Food Transformation" is urgently needed by 2050, and that the optimal diet they outline is flexible enough to accommodate food cultures around the world. Overall, the diet encourages whole grains, beans, fruits and most vegetables, and says to limit added sugars, refined grains such as white rice and starches like potatoes and cassava. It says red meat consumption on average needs to be slashed by half globally, though the necessary changes vary by region and reductions would need to be more dramatic in richer countries like the United States. Convincing people to limit meat, cheese and eggs won't be easy, however, particularly in places where those foods are a notable part of culture. In Sao Paulo, Brazil, systems analyst Cleberson Bernardes said as he was leaving a barbecue restaurant that limiting himself to just one serving of red meat a week would be "ridiculous." In Berlin, Germany, craftsman Erik Langguth said there are better ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and dismissed the suggestion that the world needs to cut back on meat. "If it hasn't got meat, it's not a proper meal," said Langguth, who is from a region known for its bratwurst sausages. Before even factoring in the environmental implications, the report sought to sketch out what the healthiest diet for people would look like, said Walter Willett, one of its authors and a nutrition researcher at Harvard University. While eggs are no longer thought to increase risk of heart disease, Willett said the report recommends limiting them because studies indicate a breakfast of whole grains, nuts and fruit would be healthier. He said everybody doesn't need to become a vegan, and that many are already limiting how much meat they eat. "Think of it like lobster something that I really like, but have a few times a year," Willett said. Advice to limit red meat is not new, and is tied to its saturated fat content, which is also found in cheese, milk, nuts and packaged foods with coconut and palm kernel oils. The report notes most evidence on diet and health is from Europe and the United States. In Asian countries, a large analysis found eating poultry and red meat (mostly pork) was associated with improved lifespans. That might be in part because people might eat smaller amounts of meat in those countries, the report says. Ioannidis of Stanford noted nutrition research is often based on observational links between diet and health, and that some past associations have not been validated. Dietary cholesterol, for example, is no longer believed to be strongly linked to blood cholesterol. The meat and dairy industries also dispute the report's recommendations, saying their products deliver important nutrients and can be part of healthy diets. Andrew Mente, a nutrition epidemiology researcher at McMaster University, urged caution before making widespread dietary recommendations, which he said could have unintended consequences. Still, the EAT-Lancet report's authors say the overall body of evidence strongly supports reducing red meat for optimal health and shifting toward plant-based diets. They note the recommendations are compatible with the U.S. dietary guidelines, which say to limit saturated fat to 10 percent of calories. While people in some poorer counties may benefit from getting more of the nutrients in meat and dairy products, the report says they shouldn't follow the path of richer countries in how much of those foods they eat in coming years. Though estimates vary, a report by the United Nations said livestock is responsible for about 15 percent of the world's gas emissions that warm the climate. Robbie Andrew, a senior researcher at CICERO Center for International Climate Research in Norway, said farming practices that make animals grow faster and bigger may help limit emissions. But he said cows and other ruminant animals nevertheless produce a lot of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. "It's very difficult to get down these natural emissions that are part of their biology," Andrew said. The environmental benefits of giving up red meat depend on what people eat in its place. Chicken and pork produce far fewer emissions than beef, Andrew said, adding that plants in general have among the smallest carbon footprints. Brent Loken, an author of the EAT-Lancet report, said the report lays out the parameters of an optimal diet, but acknowledged the challenge in figuring out how to work with policy makers, food companies and others in tailoring and implementing it in different regions. ____ AP reporters Frank Jordans in Berlin and Stan Lehman in Sao Paulo, Brazil, contributed to this article. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Claim: Less beef, more beans. Experts say world needs a new diet.
[A]:
A hamburger a week, but no more that's about as much red meat people should eat to do what's best for their health and the planet, according to a report seeking to overhaul the world's diet.