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.

Ex Input:
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."

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

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Measures to curb the movement of people, imposed to contain the spread of the virus, have hit car sales hard, leading Germany's Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) on Thursday to abandon its full year outlook and issue a profit warning. As Germany prepares to ease lockdown measures which will allow car dealerships to reopen, lobby group VDA said demand needed to a boost. "There is currently no reason for optimism. It is likely that economic support measures will be necessary in order to revive overall economic demand and, in particular, the demand for vehicles," Hildegard Mueller, president of German auto industry association VDA said in a statement on Thursday. How such incentives should be structured and funded depends on how well demand rebounds after Germany loosens lockdown measures, Mueller said. "We will only be able to estimate what is actually necessary once the car dealerships have opened. Then we will see how customers will behave." Politicians and the auto industry need to act in a timely fashion, she cautioned. "It will be too late to talk about possible demand impulses in autumn." Mueller's remarks, made on Wednesday and published by the VDA on Thursday, follow calls for state aid made by Bavarian premier Markus Soeder on April 8. At the time, he called for a cash-for-clunkers scrappage scheme to boost low emission cars, an idea which was immediately endorsed by BMW's Chief Executive Oliver Zipse. "We need to have another very specific discussion about how we can strengthen the automotive sector. And I think it is necessary to develop a model similar to the scrappage scheme in order to give a massive boost to domestic demand," Soeder said, adding that measures were needed to boost demand for low emission vehicles in particular. "Let's be quite honest, all the new engines have not yet been as successful on the market as we thought. Now is the chance to start a project in which we can promote cars in Germany with an innovation premium." Stephan Weil, the premier of Lower Saxony, the German state which owns a 20% stake in Volkswagen, this week told Hannoverschen Allgemeine Zeitung that the country needed an "eco scrappage scheme" to boost demand for electric and hybrid cars. Tobias Austrup, a transport specialist at environmental lobby group Greenpeace, also welcomed the idea. "It is good that Weil and Soeder link any state aid for the car industry to ecological progress this time. If all taxpayers make this money available, then everyone must benefit from it - for example through better air, less climate damage and secure jobs." Claim: German auto industry calls for incentives to boost green car demand.

Ex Output:
Germany's auto industry association VDA on Thursday joined a chorus of demands from auto industry executives and politicians calling for more incentives to revive demand for low emission vehicles in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic.

Ex Input:
Paragraph: Lawyers for the state, including Attorney General Mike Hunter, told a judge in Norman, Oklahoma that J&J's "greed" led the drugmaker to carry out a years-long marketing effort that caused "utter confusion" about the addictive painkillers' risks. Brad Beckworth, a lawyer for the state, said J&J knew opioids were harmful, yet minimized the risk of addiction in their marketing, resulting in a surge in overdose deaths as doctors overprescribed the drugs and they flooded the state. "They didn't get here from a Mexican cartel," Beckworth said. "They got here from the pharmaceutical cartel, and the kingpin of them all is Johnson & Johnson." The state urged Judge Thad Balkman, who presided over the nonjury trial for six weeks, to find J&J liable for creating a public nuisance and force it to pay up to $17 billion over 30 years to address the epidemic. Larry Ottaway, J&J's attorney, countered its products, which had included the painkillers Duragesic and Nucynta, were minimally used in Oklahoma and that trial testimony showed doctors were not misled about the drugs' risks before prescribing them. He said New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J strictly adhered to regulations governing opioids, which served a legitimate purpose, and called Oklahoma's multi-billion dollar demand "untenable." "Only a company that believes its innocence would come in and defend itself against a state, but we take the challenge on because we believe we are right," Ottaway said in his closing argument. Balkman said he would rule after receiving briefs from both sides, due July 31. The case is one of around 2,000 actions by state and local governments accusing drug manufacturers of contributing to the opioid epidemic. Opioids were linked to a record 47,600 overdose deaths in 2017, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Oklahoma case is being closely watched by plaintiffs in other opioid lawsuits, particularly in 1,900 cases pending before a federal judge in Ohio who has been pushing for a settlement ahead of an October trial. Purdue and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (TEVA.TA) were originally also defendants in the case. Purdue reached a $270 million settlement with Oklahoma in March and Teva settled for $85 million in May. Both deny wrongdoing. Claim: Opioid 'kingpin' J&J fueled epidemic, Oklahoma argues at trial's end.

Ex Output:
Lawyers for the state of Oklahoma on Monday compared Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) to a drug cartel leader as they sought to hold the drugmaker responsible for fueling the U.S. opioid epidemic in the first trial to result from lawsuits over the crisis.