Tangle - The burn pits bill (the PACT act).

Episode Date: August 3, 2022

The bill, short for the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act, passed the Senate yesterday and is expected to be signed into law. Plus, a question about responding to reader emails. You can read today's podcast here.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and produced by Trevor Eichhorn. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle’s social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo.--- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place where you get views from across the political spectrum. Some independent thinking without all that hysterical nonsense you find everywhere else. I'm your host, Isaac Saul, and I'm here on day three of COVID quarantine, feeling a little bit better, still holed up in this makeshift studio. I hope I sound a little bit better today. Thank you all for the kind words and reaching out and everything. We have an interesting newsletter today. We're going to be covering the PACT Act. That is the bill short for the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring Our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act. Yes, I'm glad they're calling it the PACT Act. That is a lot

easier. That bill passed the Senate yesterday and is expected to be signed into law by President Biden ASAP. But as always, before we jump into that, we'll start off with some quick hits. First up, voters in Kansas rejected a constitutional amendment by an 18-point margin that would have allowed the state to ban nearly all abortion procedures, a major win for pro-choice activists. Number two, in Michigan's Republican primary for the 3rd District, Trump endorsed John Gibbs narrowly defeated Representative Peter Meyer, who voted for impeachment. Gibbs received a boost from the Democratic Party, who believes he will be easier to defeat in a general election.

In Arizona, Blake Masters narrowly defeated Jim Lehman for the GOP nomination and will now face Senator Mark Kelly, the Democrat from Arizona, in November. 3. Representatives Rashida Tlaib, the Democrat from Michigan, and Cori Bush, the Democrat from Missouri, two members of Democrats' progressive group known as the Squad, easily defeated their primary challengers yesterday. Number four, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat from California, arrived and departed from Taiwan, pledging that the U.S. will not abandon its commitment to the island nation. China condemned the visit and announced military exercises in response. Number five, the Justice Department sued Idaho over a law that bans most abortions, alleging the state law conflicts with a federal law that requires hospitals to provide necessary treatment in emergency scenarios. A major U-turn in Congress today.

The Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer now says Senate Republicans have reached an agreement to pass the PACT Act. Providing expanded health care access to veterans sick and dying from exposure to toxic burn pits. Biden calling it an important action to meet this sacred obligation of military service, with the bill now headed for his desk. Biden calling it an important action to meet this sacred obligation of military service, with the bill now headed for his desk. The PACT Act would fund research and benefits for as many as 3.5 million military veterans who were exposed to toxic substances during their service abroad. The U.S. military notoriously burned waste in large open pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of those burned pits included materials like rubber,

paint, plastics, and human waste. The bill is expected to cost about $280 billion over the next decade. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office said some 250 burn pits existed in Afghanistan and nearly two dozen in Iraq. Large bases produced 60,000 to 85,000 pounds of waste a day. At Joint Base Balad in Iraq, some 200 tons of waste were burned each day, according to researchers. Exposure to those pits could cause temporary and lasting health difficulties. Many veterans have cited burn pit exposures as the cause of cancers, neurological issues, and respiratory diseases. However, veterans have had a difficult time proving conclusively enough that burn pits cause their illnesses to receive benefits.

According to USA Today, the process can take years, and more than 70% of such claims are denied by the VA. The PACT Act aims to be a way to research, address, and remedy those repercussions and legislates automatic approval for all such claims. There's been a lot of drama around the bill. In June, it passed the Senate with overwhelming Republican support, but a technical error necessitated another vote last week, and this time about two dozen GOP senators reversed course and blocked the bill's final passage. This drew condemnation from veterans groups, lawmakers, and even the comedian and activist Jon Stewart, who has been a leading proponent of the bill and is drumming up media attention about its failure to become law. Some Democrats accused Republicans of sinking a procedural vote on the bill as payback

for Democrats proceeding with their reconciliation package. The blocking vote came just hours after Senator Joe Manchin, the Democrat from West Virginia, announced his reversal and an agreement with Majority Leader Schumer on a plan to support the package. Republicans like Senator Ted Cruz, the Republican from Texas, and Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania said they voted against the bill because language in the bill could allow unrelated spending down the road. This part of the debate is quite complicated, so it's important to explain the details. In federal budgeting, there are two kinds of spending, mandatory and discretionary. Generally speaking, discretionary spending has to be re-approved each year in the appropriations process, while mandatory spending happens automatically,

absent a change in law. You can read a longer explanation of that with a link in today's newsletter. Mandatory spending includes things like veterans' benefits and social security, while discretionary spending includes things like the defense budget or education budget. Toomey has been clear that he does not have concerns about categorizing the new $280 billion of benefits in the PACT Act as mandatory spending. Instead, he is objecting to provisions in the bill to move $390 billion in veteran affairs spending from the government's discretionary category to an annual mandatory category, which he said could allow budget gimmicks down the road. As the Military Times explained, quote, by reducing the total amount of discretionary spending in the non-defense side of the federal budget, future appropriators could

have more flexibility to shift money into other non-veteran programs, end quote. Democrats have criticized this argument, noting that the normal appropriations process would allow those debates to play out annually and publicly. Toomey specifically wanted to vote on an amendment to clarify this, and was opposed to the bill on the first vote for the same reason. After he made his arguments again, and Manchin reversed his position on the reconciliation package, about 25 Republican senators changed their votes. Republicans have claimed Toomey's position moved them, while Democrats claimed it was a spiteful payback. As Stewart noted, the text of the bill related to the spending had not changed at all between the time Republicans first approved the bill and when it failed. There were some very minor markups, but nothing that changed the scope

or the issues Toomey claimed to be worried about. Last night, the Senate finally passed the Byrne-Pitts Bill 86-11, with all 11 no votes coming from GOP members, including Toomey. Senator Cruz ended up voting in favor of the bill. In a moment, you're going to hear some arguments from the right and the left about what happened, and then my take. First up, we'll start with what the right is saying. The right supports the funding for veterans, but criticizes Democrats for obscuring what the bill will do to the budget. Many argue that Toomey isuring what the bill will do to the budget. Many argue that Toomey is right that the bill could open up unrelated spending down the road. Some also criticize Stewart, claiming he misrepresented the Republicans' position.

In National Review, Ramesh Ponaru said not everyone discussing the bill has command of the facts. Here's what the Republican objectors, led by Senator Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania, have right. The bill, as written, effectively loosens the caps on discretionary spending by $390 billion, Ponnaroo wrote. The Congressional Budget Office said so shortly before the June vote. That means it would be easier procedurally to spend an additional $390 billion, not on veterans' health care, not even on a VA slush fund that has entered this confused debate, but on anything. Adopting Toomey's amendment, as he has repeatedly explained, not on veterans' health care, not even on a VA slush fund that has entered this confused debate, but on anything. Adopting Toomey's amendment, as he has repeatedly explained, would not cut veterans' benefits by $1. Here's what Democrats have right. This objection applied to the June bill too, and most Republicans, thinking at the time that it would be moving quickly to the

president's desk, voted for it anyway. The theory that progressives have been advancing for the last few days is that Republicans have turned their backs on veterans at a peak at the Democrats' increased likelihood of passing a big spending bill thanks to the Manchin-Schumer agreement, or just to be cruel, he added. An alternative theory is that Republicans other than Toomey were slow to grasp the implications of the bill for the discretionary caps and want, as they say, to amend the bill to fix the problem. The fact that the issue continues to be widely misunderstood lends some plausibility to this theory. So does the fact that the amendment Toomey is offering wouldn't cut spending on veterans. So does the fact that while Republicans have indulged in some mostly foolish speculation

about retaliation for the Manchin-Schumer deal, they have not been talking about holding up the PACT Act for that reason, let alone coordinating a vote for that purpose. And, so, finally, does the fact that such retaliation would be politically insane. In the Washington Examiner, Christopher Tremogli said Stewart should be going after Democrats. Comedian Jon Stewart hopped on his left-wing soapbox this week to vilify Republicans for the sins of Democrats with regard to the promise to address Comprehensive Toxins Act, Tramagli wrote, The PACT Act is a bill entitled to improve health care and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances and for other purposes. It's an important bill to fund an increase

in health care access to veterans exposed to burn pits, radiation, and Agent Orange during their time in the military. So why did Democrats include $400 billion of unrelated spending in the bill? Senator Ted Cruz took to Twitter to explain why Republicans voted against the bill. I voted for the PACT Act and I advocated for it for a long time, Cruz said. We have an obligation to take care of our veterans, particularly those who were wounded or injured from burn pits or in other ways from combat. The issue here is that Democrats included in this bill an accounting gimmick where they took $400 billion of spending, discretionary spending, they shifted it to mandatory spending. Didn't change the amount at all, but the reason they did that is it created a hole for $400 billion in new discretionary spending. They want to cram

$400 billion in unrelated spending into this bill. If Stewart had any integrity, he would attack the Democrats for their malfeasance instead of being the left-wing shill and performance actor he has always been, Tremogli wrote. Stewart's heart might be in the right place, but his mind has been poisoned by Democratic indoctrination and politics. In Commentary Magazine, Noah Rothman called it a vicious smear from Democrats. This smear, and it is a smear, is predicated on the presumption that it will encounter a friendly media environment where it will be disseminated uncritically and without hesitation. When it comes to Democratic talking points, that's usually a safe bet. It sure paid off in this case. But the truth of the matter is more complicated. In fact,

a fuller understanding of the Republican position should compel Democrats with the capacity for shame to explain themselves, Rothman said. The Pennsylvania senator's long-held objection to this legislation rests on the fact that about $400 billion in spending over the next 10 years has been deemed non-discretionary, meaning that it doesn't need to be deliberately appropriated by Congress and will be spent, no matter what. Their confusion, and Stewart's, is rooted in the fact that so many Republican lawmakers voted in favor of cloture in June but against cloture last week. They're manufacturing reasons to vote against legislation that they literally voted for just last month, said one frustrated veteran who appeared alongside Stewart. Advocates for this worthy cause don't even address the simplest explanation for Senate Republicans' reversal, which is by no means exculpatory of Republicans, that Toomey and his staff read the

legislation more carefully than his GOP colleagues. It must be that those senators, some of whom are veterans themselves, quote, don't support veterans, end quote. It is not heartless to object to federal spending for spending's sake at a time of rampant inflation, which was partly exasperated by the federal government's introduction of too much capital into an economy typified by shortages in spending for spending's sake at a time of rampant inflation, which was partly exasperated by the federal government's introduction of too much capital into an economy typified by shortages in goods and labor. All right, that is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to the left's take. The left criticized Republicans for the reversal, alleg is it for what the right is saying, which brings us to the left's tape. The left criticized Republicans for the reversal, alleging it was meant as payback and they should have passed the bill as they did initially. Many praised Stewart for his handling of Republicans.

Others argued the bill is necessary and long overdue. In CNN, Dean Obadiah said Stewart had good reason to be infuriated with Republicans. The GOP tried to score political points by delaying this vital piece of legislation that would assist an estimated 3.5 million military veterans, Obadiah wrote. Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, Interior Chinatown follows the story of Willis Wu, a background character trapped in a police procedural who dreams about a world beyond Chinatown. When he inadvertently becomes a witness to a crime, Willis begins to unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza

cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at flucellvax.ca. This issue is literally a matter of life and death for those sickened by exposure to toxins

emitted from burn pits. The legislation would provide hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade to help them. And going forward, veterans exposed to burn pits will now have the presumption of having contracted certain respiratory illnesses and cancers, allowing them to more easily obtain disability payments, he said. So why did Senate Republicans block legislation that would help millions of vets last week? Could it be that the GOP doesn't want to hand President Biden a legislative win on an issue he has long championed, especially so close to November's midterm election? Some speculate that Republicans' backtracked as part of a backlash after being caught by surprise over the deal announced last week by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, forged in secrecy with West

Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin on legislation to address climate change, help lower prescription drug costs, and increase tax revenues. Republican Senator Ted Cruz, who not only voted against the bill last Wednesday to aid veterans, but despicably was seen fist-bumping other GOP senators to celebrate the blockage of the legislation, claimed it was because the measure contained a budget gimmick. Stewart is 100% correct about Republican game-playing. The PACT Act passed the House last month with only minor tweaks, but those minor changes prompted another vote by the Senate. Last week, 25 GOP senators, including Cruz, flipped their earlier yes votes to block it. In the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin said Jon Stewart showed Democrats how to respond

to Republican cruelty. The GOP's reversal on the bill seems to be motivated by payback, she wrote. Republicans voted against the PACT Act because they were angry over the agreement between Senator Joe Manchin and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on the Inflation Reduction Act, the reconciliation package that includes tax hikes on the wealthy, subsidies for the Affordable Care Act coverage, and investment in green energy. The deal was announced just hours after the Senate passed its bipartisan bill to enhance national security and U.S. competitiveness against China by investing in semiconductor manufacturing. In other words, Republicans threw a temper tantrum because they would no longer be

able to hold the semiconductor bill hostage to block passage of Democrats' popular agenda, Rubin said. Think about that for a second. Republicans took their frustrations with the Democrats out on sick veterans. That'll show them. In the days since the GOP stalled the bill, Stewart was unflinching. He went in front of cameras on Thursday to express what many Americans were feeling. Regarding Republicans' about-face on the bill, Stewart said he was used to the hypocrisy, lies, and cowardice of politicians, but, quote, I am not used to the cruelty. Republicans will likely come crawling back to approve the bill now that they have been exposed as deceitful, malicious, and petulant, but Democrats should learn from Stewart and apply his

techniques in other contexts. In the Philadelphia Inquirer, Navy veteran Jeremy Butler implored to me not to block veterans' care. To the nearly 759,000 veterans and almost 2,000 active duty service members who call Pennsylvania their home, the split vote between the Pennsylvania senators could cost them dearly, Butler said. As if that wasn't enough, Tumi proposed an amendment to the PACT Act which arbitrarily limits the amounts of funding that Congress believes should be spent each year for the next 10 years in support of veterans exposed to toxins. As drafted, this amendment leaves open the possibility that in order to provide sufficient funds for veterans' health and benefits, additional funding may end up coming at the expense of other critical veteran care programs or even other agencies. So, I asked Toomey,

are you really putting a price limit on our nation's promise to care for the brave Americans who have risked their lives to fight for our country? And there continue to be lives on the line, he wrote. According to Iraq and Afghanistan's Veterans of America's 2022 member survey, 82% of veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been suffering consequences of burn pit exposure and or airborne toxic materials during their years of service. About half of those exposed believe they have symptoms associated with the exposure. When our service members made the decision to join the military, they knew that they would face countless dangers as they worked to protect our great country. However, being denied health care from their own lawmakers was one I doubt ever crossed their minds.

cross their minds. All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying, which brings us to my take. This whole episode is very informative about the current state of Congress and their media, the way so many reporters swallow political talking points wholesale, and how so few members of Congress are actually doing their jobs. Here is my best read on what happened. Democrats and Republicans had bipartisan support for this bill. When it passed the first time, senators like Pat Toomey objected on the grounds that it could plausibly open up hundreds of billions of dollars of non-veteran spending down the road, which is true.

Despite that, nearly all Republicans got on board and voted for the bill, presumably without reading it very closely, which is typical of our inept Congress. When a technical error brought the bill back up for a vote, Toomey saw an opening. He convinced some Republicans to jump ship, and maybe some did on the grounds of his argument alone, or maybe some were really angry about Manchin's reversal and wanted some kind of payback. I find that second scenario very unlikely, but I can't totally disprove it. There were reports that Toomey was lobbying members behind closed doors to reverse their positions on the fiscal responsibility grounds. This reversal put people like Senator Ted Cruz in a very tough spot. Cruz voted for the bill in June and without any meaningful changes voted against it in July.

If he were honest about his position, as Toomey has been, he could tell people that he didn't read the bill all that closely before voting for it the first time, and when he realized what was in it or when Toomey explained it to him, he changed his mind. Since he's not honest, he concocted a lie about Democrats slipping in some budgetary gimmick in the 11th hour, which is not what they did. The bill was fundamentally the same as it had always been, but Cruz couldn't admit that without also admitting he hadn't really read it the first time around. This opened him up to some fire from Stewart, who rightly hammered Cruz for the unjustified lie and flip-flop. But Stewart wasn't right about everything either. When he said over and over that the PACT Act is a

standalone bill, the PACT Act has no spending unrelated to veterans' health and benefits, there is no pork, there is no budget maneuver that then allows Dems to backfill with whatever they want, he is not exactly right. As many writers above point out, and as the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, the current legislation would allow policymakers to transfer up to $390 billion of existing funds from discretionary to mandatory, which would make it easier for appropriators to boost funding in other areas without paying the costs. This is the difference between spending money that you have and putting all that money on the credit card, and we already have a lot of

money on the credit card. Toomey was essentially right on what his amendment would have done. Many in the media did a terrible job of explaining this, instead choosing to just echo Stewart's attack lines uncritically and apply them to all Republicans. Stewart, meanwhile, deserves huge kudos for getting this bill across the finish line, even if he dismissed the legitimate concern in doing so. It's a disgrace that it has taken so long in a country that claims to support our troops, and it's an embarrassment that we do such a poor job of caring for our veterans when they come home from war. Meanwhile, Cruz and other Republicans were exposed for their lack of due diligence. In the end, the bill ended up getting passed without any amendments added, which does open the door for the gimmicks Toomey warned about. Like over 80% of the Senate apparently is,

I'm glad the bill passed, even without Stumme's amendments, because the need to better fund these programs is truly pressing and cannot wait. But if that money is irresponsibly diverted down the line, I hope the press gives it the same attention they gave Republicans this week. But I won't hold my breath. All right, that is it for my take, which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from EJ in Binghamton, New York. EJ said, hi, Isaac. I've been a subscriber for about a year and a half now. Seeing how quickly Tangle is growing, at what point do you think it will not be feasible to personally respond to emails anymore? It's one of my favorite parts of Tangle.

So EJ, this is something I think about a lot actually. Honestly, I think in some ways we're already there. I'm about two weeks behind on reader feedback right now, which may not feel like a long time to readers, but definitely feels like a long time to me. The days of responding to every email I get within a couple days are long gone, and last night I was going through reader feedback and writing to some folks who had messaged me in June. Still, I don't know that I'll ever abandon the practice completely or just give it up. I carve out a couple hours every day to write to readers, and it is always time well spent. For starters, I learn a lot. Many of my readers and listeners are experts in niche

fields involved in politics themselves, work for the government, or have jobs and hobbies related to the topics I cover. I always learn when I spend a couple of hours reading the notes I get from people. It's also a great way to take the pulse of the country. For example, I saw a ton of reader questions in the last few days about today's topic, the PACT Act, so I knew people would be interested in it. That is a super valuable piece of information when I'm trying to decide what topics to cover. It is also a good gauge for where I am personally. If I take a position where 90% of the responses I get are critical, I can deduce I may be far off to one side, given that my readership is pretty politically diverse. If I get a really healthy mix of criticism and praise,

I can figure that maybe my position was more nuanced and moderate. That's always interesting to me, even if my goal is not necessarily to fall in the middle. All that's to say, I think reader feedback is one of those things I'll always keep as a core part of my job. As Tangle grows and expands, I suspect I'll delegate and hire for a lot of other roles before I stop replying to readers myself. In the meantime, you all might just have to be a little bit more patient for my replies. have to be a little bit more patient for my replies. Alright, next up is a story that matters for the day. For the first time ever, total U.S. household debt climbed past $16 trillion in the second quarter.

The collective American IOU, as CNBC put it, climbed primarily due to rising mortgages and vehicle purchases, the costs of which are both way up thanks to inflation. Americans are borrowing more, but a big part of the increased borrowing is attributable to higher prices, the New York Fed said. Credit card balances are up 13% over the past year, the largest gain in 20 years. However, while debt is rising, delinquency has remained relatively benign, with only 2.7% of outstanding debt in delinquency. Actually, that's two percentage points lower than the first quarter of 2020 when the pandemic began. CNBC has the story, and there's a link to it in today's newsletter. Alright, next up is the numbers section. 59-41% is the percentage of Kansas voters who voted against and for the amendment to strip abortion rights from the state constitution. 940,000 is the estimated number of

Kansas voters who cast ballots in the primaries on the referendum. 473,000 is the number of Kansas voters who voted in the 2018 primaries, and the estimated number of Kansas voters who voted in the 2018 primaries, and the estimated number of Kansas voters who cast ballots in the 2018 midterms was 1.05 million. Six is the number of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump that have now retired or lost the primary race. 77% is the percentage of voters who support caps on prescription drug prices, a key component of the Inflation Reduction Act, according to a new Morning Consult poll. All right, and last but not least, I have a nice day section. The House of Representatives passed the Safeguarding Treatment for the Restoration of Ecosystems and Abandoned Mines Act, the so-called STREAM Act, by a 391-9 vote last week.

The bill would guarantee new investments in abandoned mine cleanup that would address acid mine drainage that seeps into waterways across the country. Coal mines that have been shuttered for decades are still polluting our waterways, but this bill aims to solve that problem. David Wilms, the Senior Director of Western Wildlife and Public Lands at the National Wildlife Federation, said abandoned mines and their discharges into waterways threaten people and wildlife alike. The STREAM Act is a common-sense, bipartisan proposal to reclaim and restore mining sites, protect clean drinking water, and support the nation's $887 billion outdoor recreation economy. Appalachian Voices has the story and there's a link to it in today's newsletter.

Appalachian Voices has the story, and there's a link to it in today's newsletter. All right, everybody, that is it for today's podcast. As always, we'll be right back here same time tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Our newsletter is written by Isaac Saul, edited by Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, Ari Weitzman, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager, Magdalena Bokova, Thank you. www.readtangle.com Based on Charles Yu's award-winning book, We'll be right back. unravel a criminal web, his family's buried history, and what it feels like to be in the spotlight. Interior Chinatown is streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. The flu remains a serious disease. Last season, over 102,000 influenza cases have been reported

across Canada, which is nearly double the historic average of 52,000 cases. What can you do this flu season? Talk to your pharmacist or doctor about getting a flu shot. Consider FluCellVax Quad and help protect yourself from the flu. It's the first cell-based flu vaccine authorized in Canada for ages six months and older, and it may be available for free in your province. Side effects and allergic reactions can occur, and 100% protection is not guaranteed. Learn more at FluCellVax.ca.