Live data from Hacker News

Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

bbc.com

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#591
post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or even crazier, hear me out, maybe we can just let people have healthcare without cost-gating it? Like oh idk, every other even semi-wealthy nation in the world except the one where measles is making a comeback?

What do you mean by "without cost-gating"? Public healthcare systems in other countries have procedures they don't cover, and significant wait periods (i.e., shortages) to see doctors and specialists and have procedures done. Because of the cost. I'm not saying they aren't better than America's, but the idea you can just let people have it and not worry about costs isn't true. Health is like around quarter of entire…

>what do you mean by that

I mean, raise taxes on businesses (wanna guess how many walmart employees are on government aid, i.e how much we tax payers are directly subsidizing their exorbitant profits while they pay their employees below a living wage?)Tax the rich, (3 individuals hoard more wealth than 50% of the country combined) + Cut some large percentage of insurance jobs, military spending, and use that money to provide healthcare to every american, without spending time and money making sure they're poor before we deign them able to receive help. really, it's quite simple.

>Public healthcare systems in other countries have procedures they don't cover, and significant wait periods (i.e., shortages) to see doctors and specialists and have procedures done.

Agreed there. Ever wonder why?

Taking your point earnestly for a moment, can you earnestly tell me that's not still miles better than America, with more expensive outcomes, worse care outcomes, lowering life expectancy compared to poorer nations, record maternal mortality rates, and tons of medical bankruptcies?[2]

Cmon, be serious. Go fund me is one of the bigger health insurance systems in the country.[3] Btw, medicare for all saves tremendous amounts of money vs our current system.[1] Much like ubi, the science is clear, but the rich and the naive are too brainwashed or dumb by the propaganda of the oligarchy owned media to think American's deserve healthcare, housing, a dignified life.

Seriously, Compare your "worst case" to america, where people simply can't afford to see the specialists, or get the procedures at ALL. I know which one I would have and my opinion is backed by the sentiment, and empirical data of, like I said, literally every even half developed nation in the world. Your can offer nothing against this. It's simply fact.

That's not even to speak about women dying from things like birth complications because their draconian state let the theocratic fascists dictate what a women and their doctor can and can't do with their own body.[0]

>because of the cost

Drastic, brazen or glib misunderstanding of history and politics. Throughout conservative governments, from reagan to thatcher to bush to trump, the objective of these ayn rand reading dummies, (read, austerity politicians) are as follows:

1. cut funding to vital social agency.

2. point to resulting difficulties as proof it's a silly system.

3. sell it off to private corporations and get hefty kickbacks.

THAT is what causes all of the (still lesser than ours) problems you lament.

>the idea you can just let people have it and not worry about costs isn't true

Where did I say that again?

Man, if only someone had thought of that. If only we had a 1% that controls almost 40% of the wealth in this country. We could raise taxes to pay for such a program. Btw, I reiterate, every study, (even from neocon think tanks) recognize it would save us hundreds of billions.) But austerity/conservative politicians don't want to improve the lives of us, they want to enrich their fellow oligarchs.

Even thinking about this for a second will validate the notion. Instead of hundreds and thousands of employees whose job it is to give the least care to the least people for profit, maybe spend that money oh, idk, giving people healthcare? How much healthcare could've been provided from Luigi's cough victim's salary? If instead of getting paid millions to use AI to deny healthcare to those in need, that money was oh idk, spent on healthcare?

>Health is like around quarter of entire government expenditure, it's fantastically expensive.

Gee, I wonder what the cause of that is. Oh wait, I know this one too. Pretty common conservative talking point. Have you heard of the phrase "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?"

Do you think a system where people are afraid to go to the dr for economic reasons contribute at all to the drastic healthcare expenses? I know someone that works as an ER nurse, people do not come in til they're at deaths door, with an issue that would have been remedied for a 100th the cost had they simply been able to see a doctor when first troubled. And again, all studies point to medicare for all saving hundreds of billions vs our current system.[1]

>Around the same amount of welfare expenditure, so you could double the number of people receiving welfare or double the amount that welfare recipients get for the same price, for example, which would be lifechanging for millions of the poorest and most disadvantaged people.

Or we could idk, just stop wasting money on evil "who deserves help" jobs and just you know, give that money directly to the people our government is supposed to improve the lives of? This goes for welfare, healthcare, unemployment, etc, too. How much of our social safety nets' budgets are spent in bureaucrats meant to make it difficult to get those benefits? To subsidize billion $ corporations? To bail out banks who speculated on subprime mortgages? To fund a $9T war on terror that did nothing but make us more enemies?

[0] https://steady.substack.com/p/women-in-texas-are-dying

[1]https://www.commondreams.org/news/medicare-for-all-introduce...

[2] https://www.pnhp.org/docs/AJPHBankruptcy2019.pdf

[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/02/gofundme-...

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't use a toothbrush or toothpaste, and haven't ever really, as my ASD makes it unbearable. 99% of the world does brush their teeth, so I don't see how this is relevant to their health.

25% of the world population do not have access to drinkable water[0], brushing their teeth is a luxury for them. [0]: https://toronto.citynews.ca/2023/03/22/un-26-of-world-lacks-...

do they live in Utah?

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you will brush your teeth anyway, and then you apply fluoride topically. It works. Here in Sweden we decided against fluoride for this reason and the fact that it is in fact toxic. It isn't sensible to use systemic exposure when we can use topical exposure and can improve mouth health by education, so that people do what they're supposed to. The fluoride approach achieves a basic level of health, but you can do s…

Somewhat related, as a teen in the 90s I worked at McDonald’s in The Netherlands. Because of the diet in the US, the bread used for hamburgers contained extra calcium to be more ‘healthy’, because many people did not get enough calcium intake. In The Netherlands, where people drink much more dairy products, especially back in the 90s, people would get plenty of calcium so there was no need to put extra in the bread.…

You have to drink 32 ounces of milk per day to get enough daily calcium.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also restricting the freedom of communities if you ban them from adding fluoride to their water if they like to. This ban is anti-freedom. (Just like forcing them could be argued to be, even though that's what you argued against.) So, this ban is arguably reducing freedoms on multiple levels.

In the political philosophy of the US, the unit whose freedoms matter is the individual, not the community. Freedoms for individuals necessarily come from reducing the freedom of "the community."

But, taking the individual freedom argument to its ultimate implications, the Free individual is also Free to not drink tap water in a community that decided to add fluoride to their water supply, and is also Free to move to a community that decided against it.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#595

Putting fluoride in water promotes freedom. That sounds crazy, but let me justify it. If you are poor you can't go anywhere or buy anything. You're not free if you're poor. If you are sick, you may be confined to a hospital bed or not feel good enough to do anything. If you are sick you're not free. Putting fluoride in water reduces dental costs and incidence of cavities and therefore tooth infections, particularly a…

The American view of "freedom" is all messed up. You're "free" if the government doesn't tell you to do stuff. Even if corporations make you do stuff, even if they make you do more stuff the government did, that's somehow "free". And "stuff" somehow only includes trivial things like water fluoridation. No freedom-loving American patriot ever said America isn't free because cops can just murder you if they don't like you.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#596
post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Germany for a while. There, the water that comes out of your tab doesn't get fluorized. Instead, they add fluoride to tooth paste. So, is Germany less free or more free?

> So, is Germany less free or more free? Can communities choose to fluoridate their water at the utility level or are they banned from doing so by legislation like they are in Utah?

Federal limit is 1.5 mg/l. All water suppliers have to regularly chemically/biologically analyse their water and publish fairly detailed reports. Example: https://www.bwb.de/de/assets/downloads/analysewerte-wasserwe... Some states add extra reporting requirements.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fluoride is not "in fact toxic". A substance becomes toxic in high amounts. Vitamin D becomes toxic in high amounts. The level of fluoride in drinking water is well below the toxic level.

Fluoride exposure beyond a small amount has a statistically significant effect on childhood IQ: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...

[flagged]

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#598
Preventing cavities is far more effective with topical application of fluoride on the teeth, rather than ingestion.

I personally don’t buy the passive health benefit. Even if it’s true, there’s no proof that fluoridated water is superior to topical application.

Not to mention that if we’re going to just roll over and accept stuff in the water for public health reasons, what really should be added are more vitamins, not fluoride. In particular vitamin D

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#599
post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Germany for a while. There, the water that comes out of your tab doesn't get fluorized. Instead, they add fluoride to tooth paste. So, is Germany less free or more free?

> So, is Germany less free or more free? Can communities choose to fluoridate their water at the utility level or are they banned from doing so by legislation like they are in Utah?

Can communities choose to permit murder or ban people of certain races? Is America not free because they cannot choose to vote for a government that would prohibit women from voting or jail people for expressing political opinions?

You're using an extreme definition of freedom that I suspect is not quite the trump card you think it is. No, "communities" can't just do whatever they want because they "choose" to, and nobody ouside the lunatic fringe thinks that's a prerequisite for freedom.

Re: Utah becomes first US state to ban fluoride in its water

#600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is fluoridating water better than giving out free toothpaste and toothbrushes? Has the latter been tried? "Not keeping people trapped in poverty" would be nice too but for some reason that one seems off the table.

We've been trying for the history of mankind to figure out how to "not keep people trapped in poverty". No one has solved that problem yet, despite the best of intentions with monumental effort. I'll agree with Milton Friedman on this, Capitalism, as bad as it is, has been the most successful system to alleviate poverty.

[dead]
Post reply on HN