Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

[Q]: Campaigning in the early caucus state of Nevada, the 78-year-old Vermont senator said one of the things that disturbed him about Thursday's debate was that he was hoping "to have a serious discussion about the health care crisis in America." "I was not pleased that Vice President Biden distorted what Medicare for All is and, in fact, simply parroted the line coming from the health care industry," Sanders told about 300 people at a town hall meeting at the Carson City Community Center gymnasium. "Apparently the vice president thinks it is just wonderful for people to be paying $1,000 a month ... just for health care premiums. Having deductibles of $4,000 or $5,000 or more not a problem. Paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs not a problem. Well, I think those are problems," he said. Sanders took heavy fire on his single-payer health insurance proposal at Thursday night's debate in Houston, with Biden and others hammering the Vermont senator for the cost and the political palatability of effectively eliminating the existing private insurance market. The former vice president went hardest at Sanders when the senator argued that the estimated $30 trillion cost over a decade is cheaper than the "status quo," which he put at $50 trillion with most of the money being what Americans spend privately on premiums, copays and out-of-pocket costs. Sanders' argument is that most U.S. households would pay less overall under his system, even if their taxes go up. Biden said that Sanders would effectively be handing Americans a pay cut, arguing that employers who now pay a share of workers' premiums would pocket that money instead of giving workers raises if the government were to cover all health care costs. Biden punctuated the point with one of the quotes of the night: "For a socialist, you've got a lot more confidence in corporate America than I do." Biden has aggressively defended the Affordable Care Act that was created while he was vice president under President Barack Obama. Biden released a proposal in July to add a "public option" to the 2010 health care overhaul, with expanded coverage paid for by tax increases on the wealthiest Americans. Sanders repeated his refrain Friday that health care is a human right and that Medicare for All would cover every man, woman and child in the country. It requires no premiums, no deductibles and no out-of-pocket costs and would expand Medicare to include such things as dental care, hearing aids and home health care, he said. "It's not a terribly radical idea because in one form or another it exists in countries all over the world, including Canada," Sanders said. "Is it free? No. It is funded out of the general fund in a progressive manner." Sanders said the primary function of the existing American health care system the costliest in the world is to make profits for drug and insurance companies. Sanders and a supporter of President Donald Trump who said he recently lost his insurance and job initially shouted over each other when Sanders asked for input from the audience. But they eventually put their arms around each other as Sanders asked him to help deliver the message to health care corporations and pharmaceutical drug companies that "the function of health care is to provide quality care to all of these people." Sanders dismissed others who suggested Medicare for All would prevent people from selecting their own doctor. "You can go to any doctor you want," Sanders said. "Anybody who tells you Medicare for All limits your choices of doctors are not telling you the truth." Sanders lost the 2016 Democratic caucuses in Nevada to Hillary Clinton 55% to 45% primarily because of her strength in Las Vegas and Clark County but has maintained fierce support in the key Western swing state. He carried northern Nevada's Washoe County, where he drew loud cheers later Friday from hundreds of students at an outdoor "College For All" rally on the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno. He also planned to campaign Saturday in Las Vegas.
[A]: Sanders accuses Biden of distorting 'Medicare for All' plan.

[Q]: "The effort to pass a sweeping immigration law has shifted to the Republican controlled U.S. House of Representatives where it faces a much tougher challenge than it did in the Senate. Supporters say that any hope for success lies in compromise. House Republican leaders say the Senate bill falls short in significant ways, but Democrats argue that it already contains major concessions. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a long-time advocate for immigration reform from Chicago, highlighted how much his side was willing to give up to get the Senate bill through. ""They said to immigrants, 11 million of them, they said, tell you what we're going to do: For 10 years, you pay every tax possible, but you don't get a single benefit,"" Gutierrez said on CNN's State of the Union. Gutierrez gave some examples: Immigrants with provisional legal status would not get help paying their health insurance premiums under Obamacare, and they would get no credit for any Social Security taxes they paid during the time they worked illegally. In this fact-check, we explore the terms of the deal in the Senate bill. Are they as stark as Gutierrez presents, or is the picture more complicated? Gutierrez's staff clarified that he was using shorthand to refer to means-tested federal benefits.That would include some of the country's largest programs such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF or welfare), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps). What the Senate bill says The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act allows immigrants without documents to get permission to live and work in the country legally. The Social Security Administration expects that nearly three-fourths of the estimated 11.5 million people here will qualify for what is called Registered Provisional Immigrant, status, or RPI. A smaller number of agricultural workers would qualify for a separate program called the blue card. Neither program grants citizenship or permanent legal status, but they provide a pathway to both. Applicants would need to pay a fine, a fee, and pass a criminal background check to qualify for provisional status. The bill has a specific provision that goes to Gutierrez's claim. For both RPI and blue card holders, it says, ""An alien who has been granted blue card (or RPI) status is not eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit"" and to be clear about what those benefits are, the bill refers to a law passed about 15 years ago. In 1996, Congress defined the public benefits that undocumented immigrants couldn't get. That law listed ""Any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit."" Numerous agencies have interpreted this to mean Medicaid and Medicare, SNAP, energy assistance and so forth. The Senate bill also expressly blocks immigrants with temporary status from receiving any health insurance premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. However, individuals can use their own money to buy their insurance through the clearinghouses called exchanges. ""Rep. Gutierrez is broadly correct, but not 100 percent,"" said Leighton Ku, a professor in the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University who analyzed immigrant use of public benefits in a paper for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. ""If they are poor enough and meet other eligibility criteria, for example, if they are a child or a low-income parent, RPIs may be eligible for emergency Medicaid, as are unauthorized immigrants."" The 1996 law built in some exceptions for immigrants without legal documents. In addition to Medicaid paying for emergency medical treatment, young children are eligible for reduced school lunch programs and standard immunizations. The Women, Infant and Children program, WIC, can subsidize grocery bills for young families. So for children, women who are pregnant or have recently delivered, and medical emergencies, current law allows benefits for the undocumented and the Senate bill does not change that. Lastly, on the tax side, the Senate bill says ""an alien may not file an application for registered provisional immigrant status ... unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable Federal tax liability."" In other words, these provisional residents must pay Uncle Sam. Regarding the 10 years Gutierrez mentioned, some immigrants under provisional status might be eligible for permanent resident status, a green card, sooner. If that happens, then they would gain access to public benefits in less than 10 years. However, both Social Security and Medicare require that a person or their spouse pay into the system for 10 years before they can claim any benefits. This applies to everyone, native born or not. And both programs are available only to citizens or permanent residents. People with provisional status would have Social Security and Medicare taxes deducted from their paychecks but would be ineligible to use those programs for 10 years. A dispute over benefits The U.S. Code defines public benefits, but there are some who say the list is incomplete. Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors limited immigration, said the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit provide aid to lower income workers through the tax code. A working family that owes no taxes and meets other criteria can apply and receive thousands of dollars from the government. ""Gutierrez is mistaken,"" Camarota said. ""These large programs are explicitly available to those in RPI status. Low income immigrants typically work and have children, so their use rates of these two programs are very high, as it will be for RPI folks."" Immigration reform advocates agree that provisional residents would gain from the tax credits. But Tanya Broder, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, counters that blocking their use of these credits would be a first for the tax code. ""Individuals granted RPI status are required to pay the same taxes and are subject to the same deductions from their income as all other taxpayers,"" Broder said. ""Denying them the ability to claim the EITC would create an unprecedented two-tiered tax system for lawfully present workers."" Regarding the accuracy of Gutierrez's statement, he was using the federal definition of benefits, and while lawmakers could decide otherwise, we take current law as our guide. For many years, Camarota and others have noted that the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States are deemed citizens and are eligible for benefits. Their family members could indirectly benefit. The Senate bill makes no change in that. Our ruling Gutierrez said that immigrants with provisional status would pay every tax and get no benefits. His staff said he was talking about means-tested benefits, and to a large extent, Gutierrez was in line with what the Senate immigration bill says. It requires unauthorized immigrants to pay taxes, and so long as they are in a provisional status, they would not be eligible for food, housing or medical assistance. There are exceptions under current law that would allow them to get some public benefits, but these are limited and in any event, the Senate bill does not change the status quo. A subset of immigrants, children brought to the country at a young age and agricultural workers, would be eligible for green cards in less than 10 years, but the majority, about 70 percent, would have to wait the full time."
[A]: "Luis Gutierrez Says under the Senate immigration bill, newly legalized immigrants will ""pay every tax possible, but you don't get a single benefit"" for 10 years."

[Q]: On December 16 2019, social media accounts affiliated with the United States military put up the following image with a post attached to it commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge:The photograph showed a Nazi war criminal, SS-StandartenfuhrerJoachim Peiper. The image was attached to a post that appeared to be retelling the story of the Battle of the Bulge but from Peiper's perspective:DECEMBER 16, 1944: "TODAY WE GAMBLE EVERYTHING" He paused at his desk. He hated to be alone with his thoughts, with the feeling of uncertainty he'd been trying to avoid for weeks. There was an atmosphere of heaviness. This was the way he always thought the end of the world would feel. The others were confident. They believed in der Fuhrer. They believed in their Soldiers. Not him. He picked up the pen. "Today we gamble everything." He wrote. "If this does not work, we are doomed." He put down his diary. It was time. ********** 75 years ago today, Standartenfuhrer Joachim Peiper knew that his German forces were running out of weapons, out of men, and out of ammunition. He also knew that the Soviets, the Americans, and the British could continue fighting for months. Five years after Germany began a war in Europe by invading Poland, this surprise western counteroffensive Peiper was set to launch was the only hope for the survival of Nazi Germany. The mission was called "Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein" ("Operation Watch on the Rhine"), and Joachim would lead it. The fate of his beloved nation rested on his ability to lead his men through the American lines. Joachim knew he had an advantage: the ferocious American airborne divisions the 82nd, the 17th and the 101st, now consolidated under General Matthew Ridgway as the XVIII Airborne Corps were out of the fight, resting in Wiltshire, England and Reims, France. He also knew that he would attack into the Ardennes region of Belgium at the weakest point of the Allied line, against American forces with little combat experience. The weather would help: daylight was shortest and the fog and snow would limit Allied air support. The moment had it arrived. It was the morning of December 16th, the time Adolf Hitler designated for the start of the attack. There was nothing left to do but give the order. "Forward to and over the Meuse!" Thus began the most critical moment in this Corps' history. ********* While Joachim Peiper began his push, our heroes, the Soldiers of the XVIII Airborne, were hundreds of miles away, in a group of training camps. That morning they slept, unaware that the die of war had been cast. At approximately 4:30 on the morning of December 16th, the men of the XVIII Airborne Corps unknowingly became actors in a tragedy that would be told for the next 75 years. *******This post is the first in a series that will tell the entire story of the Battle of the Bulge through January 22nd.Reaction on social media was swift and puzzled by the decision to begin the series from the perspective of the notorious SS-Standartenfuhrerand, later, convicted war criminalfor his role in the Malmedy Massacre, which incidentally, was mentioned nowhere in the original posts:I am dumbfounded by the decision to prominently display a Nazi on military social media on the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge. pic.twitter.com/Do0mB7Guvj Brian Fickel (@USArmyPAO) December 16, 2019The Malmedy Massacre took place on December 17 1944, when Waffen SS soldiers shot and killed 84 American prisoners of war. Survivor Ted Paluch recalled the day in a 2007 article:Having dismounted the vehicles and taking cover in ditches alongside the road, Paluch recognized the troops as members of the vaunted SS by the distinctive skull and crossbones and lightning insignia on their collars. They represented the advance units of the 1st SS Panzer Division, known as Kampfgruppe (Attack Group) Peiper, after their leader, SS Lt. Col. Joachim Peiper, a highly decorated veteran of campaigns in France and Russia. []Along with members of his unit and others caught off-guard at the crossroads, the group of prisoners was herded into a field at the crossroads to await their fate. They had no warning of what would transpire next."Then one command car came up and took a couple shots, and every tank and halftrack that came around the corner shot into the group," he said. "I was real lucky, as I was in the front end and only got hit slightly, but I think when they came around they fired into the center of the group."Pausing to catch his breath, he glanced over his shoulder and hesitated, almost as if reliving the moment in slow motion, before beginning again."This was their front line over here at one of these houses, and then anyone that moaned, they came around and they shot. I played dead and just lay there," he said.Paluch and some of the other survivors, hearts racing, many wounded, listened motionless as the sound of a large German mechanized column sped past. After what seemed an eternity, but from survivor reports was probably more like an hour or two, "all the trucks and halftracks passed and it was a little quiet," Paluch recalled, his profound relief still evident after the lapse of 63 years."I didn't know where they were headed, they didn't tell me, and I just wanted to know how to get out of there," he smiled.It was about 4:30 p.m. and starting to get dark. With the noise of the column fading in the ears of the survivors who lay in the field among their dead and dying comrades, many leapt to their feet and raced for the tree line. As survivors sprinted for cover, a number were engaged by German infantry still stationed in the vicinity of the crossroads, killing at least 10.After the end of World War II, the United States Army put 74 of the SS men on trial. All of the defendants were convicted and received sentences of either death or life in prison. However, there were attempts to discredit and overturn their convictions early on, as detailed in a 1949 investigation and subsequent reportthat was spurred by charges of unfair conduct by theprosecution:Through competent testimony submitted to the subcommittee, it appeared that there are strong reasons to believe that groups within Germany are taking advantage of the understandable efforts of the church and the defense attorneys as well as in other ways to discredit the American occupation forces in general. One ready avenue of approach has been through the attacks on the war-crimes trials in general and the Malmedy case in particular. The subcommittee is convinced that there is an organized effort being made to revive the nationalistic spirit in Germany through every means possible. There is evidence that at least a part of this effort is attempting to establish a close liaison with Communist Russia. These matters, of course, must be judged against the back drop of the current situation in Europe and their probable effect in the event of a war involving Russia and the United States. Everything done to weaken the prestige of the United States and our occupation policies will play an important part in any emergency.Many of the convicted in the various war crimes are former prominent Nazis, both civilian and military. In the Malmedy case alone there are three German generals, one an outstanding SS general, as well as officers of lesser rank who were excellent combat leaders. The desire of their former compatriots to have such persons released is undoubted. The implications are so serious that they cannot be disregarded by our country. In the event of the withdrawal of the American occupation forces, it is quite probable that there would be efforts made to have a general amnesty program to release these former Nazis and SS officers. That in itself is a most important consideration; but, in the event there is a larger plan to associate such individuals with the Communist forces of Europe, the problem is greatly aggravated. The subcommittee believes that such a situation presents dangerous possibilities.These early efforts to delegitimize and cast doubt on the trials was successful; by 1957, every convicted man had been released. Historian Steven Remy researched how successful those efforts were for his 2017 book, The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy, noting the relevance of the disinformation around the trials to the "fake news" that has become a touchstone of the post-2016 world:Q: While you were certainly careful to resist that presentist impulse and let the story of the massacre and its aftermath unfold on its own terms, you also clearly highlight some ways in whichThe Malmedy Massacrecan help us to understand aspects of contemporary political life. Do you worry at all that the resonance of the "fake news" phenomenon could obscure the particular contemporary relevance you had in mind?A. Not at all. I wroteThe Malmedy Massacrebecause I had become fascinated by the post-trial controversy. The present moment was also very much on my mind. I believed we needed a more historically informed debate about both interrogation methods and military courts. Another purpose was to contribute to what I would call the "untangling" of modern German history. For several decades now, German, North American, and Israeli scholars haveoften in the face of considerable resistancerevealed the extent to which our understanding of Nazi Germany has been shaped by former Nazis and their sympathizers. Yet another aim was to call attention to a strain of German and American anti-Semitism that became the lifeblood of the Malmedy case controversy.It has been encouraging to read thoughtful responses to the bookmost recently byGabriel SchoenfeldandLawrence DouglasinThe Weekly StandardandForeign Affairs, respectivelythat have engaged with these themes while also pointing out how the media generated a blizzard of fake news and how a small number of conscientious Army officials, Senators, intelligence operatives, and civil servants responded with diligence and honesty.The misdirection and propaganda has persisted among some known disinformation purveyors, however. Disgraced Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reillyhas long pushed alternate versions of what happened at Malmedy, getting the circumstances completely reversed:In Malmedy, as you know, U.S. forces captured SS forces who had their hands in the air, and they were unarmed, and they shot them down. You know that. That's on the record, been documented. In Iwo Jima, the same thing occurred. Japanese attempted to surrender, and they were burned in their caves.The social media posts were quickly taken down without explanation, but not before a discussion on the Department of Defense's Facebook page turned to defending the decision:These posts have been deleted. What you missed was a comment thread with people defending Nazi soldiers and an Army acct arguing that the story of the Battle of the Bulge had to start with the German perspective. https://t.co/gVT4jrE9bG Andrew Dyer (@SDUTdyer) December 17, 2019We have contacted the U.S. Department of Defense for more and will update this story with their response.
[A]:
The United States Department of Defense posted a commemoration of the Battle of the Bulge on social media written from the perspective of the Nazis.