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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Senate Republicans' surprise move to repeal the requirement to have health insurance into their tax reform bill revealed numbers that few people had noted before. (The mandate says that everyone must have coverage or face a fine.) ""80 percent of the tax falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less,"" Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., told Fox News Nov. 15. ""We're taking a failed policy that punishes people with taxes -- low-income people. (We're) taking that tax away, giving them tax relief there, and then ploughing that back into tax relief for middle-income families."" This was no throw-away line. Thune is the third-ranking Republican in the party's Senate leadership, and his colleagues delivered similar versions of the talking point throughout the day. In 2016, the fine for not having insurance stood at $695 for adults. The formula has a few wrinkles that brought the maximum penalty to $2,085 for a family, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever was larger. Going forward, it rises with inflation (unless of course, Congress repeals it). Not everyone without insurance has to pay the fine. The list of exemptions is long. It includes a family with income under $20,800; people who have suffered domestic violence in the household; anyone who has suffered the death of a close family member; someone who has receiveda utility shut-off notice, and more. Thune's office said he got his information from 2015 data from the Internal Revenue Service. In one key sense, Thune is correct. Out of all the tax returns sent to the IRS that included a payment of the fine, 79 percent came from households making $50,000 a year or less. (Technically, the income is adjusted gross income, which understates actual income. But on average, the adjustment makes little difference for this check.) However, Thune didn't specify that he was talking about the number of people. His description of the tax could just as equally refer to the dollars paid. The government collected a little over $3 billion from about 6.6 million households. Of that, about $1.8 billion, 60 percent, came from households with incomes under $50,000. So in dollar terms, about 60 percent of the tax fell on people in that income range, not the 80 percent that Thune said. Thune's communications staff told us he was talking about the number of people and the number of returns. We reached several health care and tax researchers, and none of them challenged the core numbers. Gordon Mermin with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center ran the numbers and found that as a percentage of income, the tax fell heaviest on the $25,000 to $50,000 group. On average, that group paid 3.1 percent of income. Mermin told us households in this range are more likely to lack insurance, and due to their incomes, are less likely to be able to claim an exemption from the fine. ""People shouldn't be surprised the $25,000 to $50,000 group is affected the most,"" Mermin said. But researchers found it odd that people making less than $25,000 had paid as much as they did. The $10,000 to $25,000 group accounted for 22 percent of the payments, and about 36 percent of the households. ""Folks are just making a mistake,"" said Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare and an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ""Given the exemptions, there is no way such low-income folks should be paying."" The IRS knows this has happened. It's been sending out letters since 2015, telling filers ""it appears that you may have reported owing too much Health Care Shared Responsibility Payment,"" the penalty's formal name. ""The IRS has reached out to some taxpayers to let them know they've overpaid the penalty, but they don't have the capacity to do that in all cases,"" said Tara Straw at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank. Straw said the IRS targets people who automatically qualify for an exemption because of their income, a factor that is stronger in states that did not expand Medicaid to people making 138 percent of federal poverty. Where the IRS effort falls short, she said, relates to personal circumstances such as a death in the family or a utility service cut-off notice. Larry Levitt at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a neutral source of health care data, also agreed that ""there certainly appear to be some low-income people paying the penalty who could be claiming an exemption."" A just-released study from Kaiser suggests the number could be large. The report found that about 5 million uninsured people could get coverage for less than the cost of the penalty. Thanks to the subsidies in Obamacare, the lowest-level plans would be free to many of those people, or if not free, available at a very low cost. If everyone took advantage of those subsidies, the 6.6 million households paying the penalty because they lack coverage would fall significantly. We don't know how the numbers would shake out because about 4 million people neither paid the fine nor told the IRS that they had coverage. Republicans offer the repeal of the penalty as a boon to working Americans, and for some it would be. But the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan analytic arm of Congress, has found that removing the penalty makes it less likely that people will seek out insurance, even if it would be free or very affordable. Thune said that 80 percent of the individual mandate penalty falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less. In terms of the number of returns in which people paid the fine, that figure is correct. In terms of the dollars collected, it overshoots the mark. People in that income range account for about 60 percent of the payments. Still, an independent analysis showed that households in the $25,000 to 50,000 income range paid the highest percentage of income on the penalty. There's strong evidence that many lower income people are paying the fine by mistake, and millions could both avoid it and gain health coverage for less than the cost of the fine. But as far as who is paying the fine." Claim: 80 percent of the (individual mandate) tax falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less.

Output: Thune said that 80 percent of the individual mandate penalty falls on those who make $50,000 a year or less. In terms of the number of returns in which people paid the fine, that figure is correct. In terms of the dollars collected, it overshoots the mark. People in that income range account for about 60 percent of the payments. Still, an independent analysis showed that households in the $25,000 to 50,000 income range paid the highest percentage of income on the penalty. There's strong evidence that many lower income people are paying the fine by mistake, and millions could both avoid it and gain health coverage for less than the cost of the fine. But as far as who is paying the fine.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "Gail Collins loves telling the story of how Mitt Romney drove his family to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car -- and telling it, and telling it, and telling it. The liberal New York Times columnist has mentioned the incident in print 19 times, by our count. She devoted a column to the incident in 2007 when Romney first ran for president. In another column, she suggested John McCain pick Romney for his running mate ""so I can repeatedly revisit the time Mitt drove to Canada with the family dog on the station-wagon roof."" And when Sarah Palin was picked instead, and Collins opined that ""unlike Mitt Romney, she has never gone on vacation with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car."" Collins regularly includes the incident in jocular news quizzes she writes. (A typical question: Which Republican hopeful ""continued to fail to explain why he drove to Canada withthe family dog strapped to the roofof the car?"" Mitt Romney.) She complained that his 2010 campaign bookNo Apologydidn't mention it, calling it ""a critical oversight."" Last year, just in time for the holidays, she suggested someone make ""a tasteful Mitt Romney Christmas Ornament"" depicting the scene ofthe dog on the roof. And just last week, she noted that the issue wasn't discussed during the Republican debate at the Ronald Reagan Library. Romney's top rival, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, reportedly shot a coyote that was threatening his daughter's dog, which made the Romney anecdote relevant. ""His puppy-rescue is a stirring picture, especially considering that Perry's chief competitor is the man who drove to Canada with the family dog Seamus strapped to the roof of the car."" Aside from wondering why Collins is so obsessed with the story, we also wondered: Is it true? We reached Collins to ask her why she liked the story so much, but she said she'd rather let her columns speak for themselves. (See a picture of Seamus here.) The story of Seamus the Irish setter is not an Internet rumor. It first appeared in the august pages of the Boston Globe in 2007, when the paper published a seven-part profile of Romney, a former Massachusetts governor who had just launched a presidential run. Thestory of Seamuskicked off Day Four, a story about Romney's family life, written by Globe reporters Neil Swidey and Stephanie Ebbert. It begins in 1983 with a 36-year-old Mitt Romney carefully packing up his five sons and luggage into the family station wagon for a 12-hour trip from Boston to Ontario, where his parents had a cottage on Lake Huron. At the time, Romney was a successful young consultant with Bain & Company, but he hadn't yet started buying and selling companies with Bain Capital in the private equity field. ""As with most ventures in his life, he had left little to chance, mapping out the route and planning each stop. ... Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack. "" Cruel? It's not presented that way in the story, which noted Romney built a special windshield for the carrier, ""to make the ride more comfortable for the dog."" But Seamus must not have been allthatcomfortable, because he began to experience, um, gastric distress. From the story: As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon, keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble. ''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours. As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management. As the story quickly made its way around the Internet, Romney loathers--and dog lovers -- had a field day. The liberal blog Wonkette said itshowedRomney would be a great commander-in-chief for the notorious Iraq prison Abu Ghraib. David Kravitz of the liberal blog Blue Mass Groupcalled it""nuts"" and ""classic Romney: it solves a problem efficiently, in a business-like manner, and with no regard whatsoever for the suffering that the solution may cause."" Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of AnimalstoldTime's Ana Marie Cox that Romney was giving his children ""a lesson in cruelty"" and that dogs under extreme stress might lose control of their bowels. ""That alone should have been sufficient indication that the dog was, basically, being tortured,"" she said. Cox explored whether Romney's actions might have been illegal under animal cruelty laws. (A moot point, because the statute of limitations has long expired.) As to the accuracy of the story, the Globe learned of the incident from friends of the family and confirmed the details with the Romney family. And the candidate himself didn't dispute the report. In fact, in the days following, he defended it. Seamus loved riding in the carrier, Romney told reporters on the campaign trail in 2007. ""He scrambled up there every time we went on trips,"" Romney said. ""He got (up) all by himself and enjoyed it."" He also said PETA had targeted him because there was a rodeo at the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, and because he went quail hunting in Georgia. ""And they're not happy that my dog likes fresh air,"" he added. Actually, Seamus had been dead -- of natural, non-station wagon-related causes -- for years when the story appeared. (He hadretiredto California to live with Romney's sister, who had more space.) We didn't get answers about Seamus from the Romney campaign, but from Neil Swidey, the Boston Globe reporter who unearthed the story. Swidey said he chose the incident to begin his story because he thought it would resonate with readers as an illustration of Romney's approach to solving problems -- trip is interrupted by dog poop, so Romney pulls over, borrows a hose, takes care of the problem, and is back on his way. ""I certainly didn't write it to make it the basis on which you judge a presidential candidate. The fact that some people appear to be doing that is a little bit crazy. But I can understand why it resonates with people,"" Swidey said. ""It's a window into how this guy operates."" Swidey said some people see it as evidence of Romney's heartlessness, while others see him as logical man and a problem solver. He confirmed the impression we got from reading the story, that the incident was amusing family lore, and that none of the Romney family was upset or disturbed by the dog riding on the roof. In fact, some of the Romneys said they thought the dog actually liked riding on the roof. (Finally, lest we be accused of utter frivolousness, we asked Swidey what aspects of Romney's biography might be more relevant to voters considering Romney for president. He pointed us toward theGlobe's coverageof Romney's business career in private equity, his time as governor and Romney's relationship with his father George, who ran for president himself back in 1968.) Here, we're ruling on Collins' statement that Romney ""drove to Canada with the family dog Seamus strapped to the roof of the car."" It's important to note that the dog was not literally strapped to the car, as in tied around its midsection. Rather, Seamus was in a carrier with a protective windscreen that Romney had built. The dog's diarrhea might indicate that something was amiss, but Romney's family didn't seem bothered by it. The anecdote is presented in theGlobeas funny family story, not as evidence of Romney's barbaric cruelty." Claim: "Mitt Romney ""drove to Canada with the family dog Seamus strapped to the roof of the car."

Output: Mitt Romney and the dog on the car roof: one columnist's obsession

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The Food and Drug Administration approved Medtronic's CoreValve system based on U.S. clinical trials in which it was shown to be safe and effective while demonstrating low rates of stroke and valve leakage, the company said. Medtronic and Wall Street analysts had not expected the approval decision until April, giving the company a head start on efforts to seize market share from a similar rival product sold by Edwards Lifesciences Corp. News of the early CoreValve approval sent Edwards shares down nearly 5 percent. More than 100,000 people in the U.S. have severe aortic stenosis with about one-third too ill or frail for open-heart valve replacement surgery, making them candidates for CoreValve or the rival Edwards Sapien system. The systems, in which the replacement valve is threaded into place through an artery using a catheter - known as transcatheter aortic valve replacement, or TAVR - spares patient's chest-cracking surgery, cutting down on recovery time. CoreValve has been available since 2007 in Europe, where it is not uncommon for medical devices to win approval several years ahead of the United States. "We estimate the U.S. TAVR market will be approximately $450 million in 2014," said Glenn Novarro, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. "With approval earlier than expected, share loss for Edwards will likely occur sooner than expected," added Novarro, who sees Medtronic grabbing 20 percent of the U.S. TAVR market this year, rising to more than 30 percent by 2016. But CoreValve's U.S. sales prospects may hinge on further legal proceedings after a U.S. jury earlier this week found that the Medtronic system infringes a patent held by Edwards and awarded Edwards more than $390 million in damages. Medtronic vowed to appeal the decision and oppose any request for an injunction. Edwards, meanwhile, said the patent infringement ruling entitled it to seek increased damages of up to three times the value of the award. The FDA approved CoreValve without first requiring an expert advisory panel to review the device and make recommendations to the agency. "The low rates of stroke and valve leakage with the CoreValve System - two of the most concerning complications of valve replacement because they increase the risk of death and have a dramatic impact on quality of life - set a new standard for transcatheter valves," Dr. Jeffrey Popma, director of Interventional Cardiology at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and one of the lead investigators of the pivotal clinical trial, said in a statement. The CoreValve uses a smaller catheter than the currently approved Sapien, giving it a potential but temporary competitive edge. Edwards is awaiting U.S. approval of a next generation Sapien with a similarly smaller catheter. Both companies are also testing their systems in less high risk patients in hopes of broadening the potential patient population and market for the devices. Medtronic shares were up 18 cents at $59.29 in afternoon trading, while Edwards shares were off $3.49, or 4.8 percent, at $69.18, both on the New York Stock Exchange. Claim: U.S. FDA approves Medtronic heart valve system early.
Output: Medtronic Inc's minimally invasive system for replacing diseased heart valves won U.S. approval for use in patients deemed too frail to endure traditional open heart surgery, the U.S. medical device maker said on Friday.