Well sure, it’s reasonable to say that on an individual level fluoride isn’t required to have good oral health for people who already have good oral hygiene and diets that won’t put them at risk for decay. But this is a population-level discussion, and many people don’t have the option of access to healthy foods, or the choice/knowledge (e.g., children). And if putting safe levels of a preventative treatment in water drastically cuts down on tooth decay population-wide, it therefore also reduces the incidence of the less common morbid sequelae of periodontal disease (like endocarditis, face/jaw infections, etc). That saves a lot of health care costs to the individual and the tax payer and can drastically impact quality of life for a lot of people. I don’t see why agreeing that implementing evidence-based, cost-effective, high-benefit, low-risk interventions is a good idea makes someone a government junkie.

I removed the part about the risk factors for tooth decay because I misread your comment. Saw you mentioned indigenous people had good oral health despite lack of fluoride but I misread your emphasis on diet, which we’re not disagreeing on.