The missing ingredient in the US is a lack of public health infrastructure that universally covers poor people. Obama's healthcare reform didn't even cover every poor person in the country. But if we had that, adding in a fluoridation regime would be trivial. "Fluoridating tapwater is the cheapest way to get it to poor people" is only true because so many poor people in the US have no healthcare, period, so you have to set up all the infrastructure from scratch. Dumping it in the city water is cheaper than setting up real public health infra, but only before you factor in every other benefit of having public health infrastructure and all the cost savings across all of society caused by having public health infrastructure.
Neoliberals in the US love it because it's one of those "smart" solutions that requires absolutely no national-level infrastructure, you just need companies with fluoride waste on one side, and municipalities willing to buy some on the other. You don't have to make our society better, and what's more, you can castigate opponents for hating poor people when really you're the one preferring dumping a single chemical in the water to address a single type of dental problem instead of supporting actual public dental health infra in this country.
Also, dumping it in the water sort of obviates one of the more important aspects of administering compounds like fluoride, which is dose control. Water fluoridation increases the rate of fluoride toxicity because drinking water is not the only source of fluoride in people's diets. Improperly administered fluoridation schemes have killed hundreds of people in the past. More recent research has also indicated that there are heath risks associated with accumulation of fluoride in soft tissues leading to damage heart muscle, kidneys, liver, and brain which had not been documented back in the 19-fucking-40's when this dipshit policy was first invented. all claims in this paragraph from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9920376/
We fluoridate the water so we don't have to actually help poor people with their health in this country, and apparently so liberals don't need to keep up with health research conducted since the 1940's.
Where does "no, people don't have the right to choose if [chemical] is added to their bloodstream, because they are stupid" stop? Who determines when it's "stupid" not to add a chemical to the water supply, and to whom do they answer? If the voting public decides to override public officials on a matter like this, you're basically saying they shouldn't have the "right" to vote the officials out on those grounds. You're basically saying this is some kind of extraordinary policy matter that obviously needs to be insulated from the kind of democratic review pretty much all other municipal policies are subject to. And we're talking about dumping a chemical in the water supply as a substitute for having good public health infrastructure in our country.
If you're a Republican, well, they're inconsistent, evil psychos, I don't expect much from them to make sense. But if you're a Democrat.... if you're a democrat.........
EDIT no really, explain it to me, don't just downvote me. Why should a highly technocratic public health policy that achieves only one public health goal, and isn't even the only way to do it, be beyond democratic review? This literally makes less than no fucking sense. Also, the rules on raw milk and lead in gasoline are also subject to democratic review. They don't get challenged because there are basically no downsides to those policies and literally the only people who are negatively impacted are people invested in the industries in question. People get iffy about fluoridation because there are corner cases that cause problems for individuals, so it's actually a public health tradeoff and you can avoid those tradeoffs with different policies (like universal public health care + fluoridation regimes) -- ie, you can achieve the benefits of fluoridation without negatively impacting anyone. The cost-benefit ratio of water fluoridation is literally different to those other policies, which is why nobody complains about unleaded gasoline but they do complain about fluoridation in water.
If nothing else, does anything strike you as half-cocked about comparing clean, potable, treated drinking water without fluoride to leaded gasoline? Do you refuse to drink un-fluoridated drinking water because of the permanent and irreversible health effects of being exposed to literally any quantity of unfluoridated potable water?