RFK Jr. Says Removing Fluoride Will Cause More Cavities
On FOX's "The Faulkner Focus," news anchor Harris Faulkner asked RFK, Jr. about his stance on removing fluoride from drinking water. In particular, she questioned him about dentists' concerns that children from low-income families may not be able to get the preventative care that they'd need to protect them from tooth decay.
Kennedy replied, "You know, it is an issue. It's a balance. You're gonna see probably slightly more cavities."
The secretary went on to say, "Although in Europe, where they banned fluoride, they did not see an uptick in cavities. The issue is, parents need to decide because the science is very clear on fluoride. The National Toxicity Program issued a report...that said there's a direct inverse correlation between the amount of fluoride in your water and loss of IQ."
The American Dental Association (ADA) released a statement in April 2025, saying that the ADA "believes that good oral health depends on proper diet, nutrition, oral hygiene, and optimally fluoridated water. Eighty years of community water fluoridation at optimal levels has proven to be safe and effective at reducing tooth decay to improve oral health."
Historically, there are cities in the US and internationally that have removed fluoride from their water supply and seen increased cavities as a result. The New York Times reported that Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, is reintroducing fluoride into its water supply after 10 years, starting just this week. They noted that "The Alberta Children's Hospital saw a stark increase in the number of children from Calgary who needed antibiotics to treat dental infections after fluoride was removed from the drinking water."
Unsurprisingly, people on Reddit had some thoughts on the secretary's comments. "Could we, instead, maybe focus on banning lead in our drinking water? We'll tell him it's to reduce obesity."
"So, honestly asking here...he says it's a balance…so what are we gaining for the increase in dental costs to the tune of $300/year average for all Americans?"
"I used to be a dental hygienist. All this will do is cause people who have no money to now have to spend it on dental, but they can't. They won't because they can't. Increasing poverty. I hate this MF."
"For the kids and adults who don't have access to dental care for whatever reason, this is going to be devastating. It hurts nothing and helps those who need it most."
"How does having more cavities in children's mouths make us great and healthy again?"
The conversation continued over on Twitter (X), with one user saying, "More cavities for kids in families who can't afford dental care."
"Gonna see slightly more cavities, but luckily in exchange for that we're going to get absolutely no benefits whatsoever so I guess it's a fair tradeoff," said another.
And finally, "This isn't public health. It's policy by privilege."
If you'd like to watch the full clip, you can do so below. And I'd love to know: are you concerned about the levels of fluoride in Americans' drinking water, or do you think it should be left as-is? Let us know in the comments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate megabill marks biggest Medicaid cuts in history
Senate Republicans on Tuesday passed the largest cuts to Medicaid since the program began in the 1960s, a move that would erode the social safety net and cause a spike in the number of uninsured Americans over the next decade. The tax and spending bill is projected to cost more than $3 trillion during that time, but it would be partially paid for with about $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid. Almost 12 million lower-income Americans would lose their health insurance by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It still needs to pass the House again, where some moderate Republicans have expressed concerns about the cuts. The CBO was still analyzing the bill after it was released late Friday, and many last-minute changes meant a more exact forecast on coverage losses wasn't possible before the Senate rushed to vote on it. President Trump and most congressional Republicans say the reductions aren't true cuts. They argue nobody who should be on Medicaid will lose benefits. 'We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it,' President Trump said at the White House last week. Still, experts and health advocates say the CBO analysis confirms that despite Trump's repeated pledges to only cut waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) made an impassioned speech on the Senate floor Sunday night warning that Trump was breaking his promise not to cut Medicaid. 'The people in the White House advising the president, they're not telling him that the effect of this bill is to break a promise,' Tillis said the day after announcing he would not seek reelection. 'I'm telling the president, you have been misinformed. You supporting the Senate mark will hurt people who are eligible and qualified for Medicaid.' Over time, the losses will blunt the significant coverage gains made under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed by then-President Obama in 2010. 'This bill isn't being crafted to improve health care in America, or to improve the Medicaid program, or to improve the [ACA]. The purpose of these cuts in the bill is to try to find savings to pay for tax cuts,' said Andrea Ducas, vice president of health policy at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress. 'It's treating these health care programs as a [piggy bank]. It's just, how do we extract as much from these programs as humanly possible so that we can find the savings to pay for tax cuts,' Ducas said. The effects of the cut could be devastating, beyond coverage losses. People who lose their Medicaid would have to pay more out of pocket, driving up medical debt and leading to them likely delaying needed treatment or medication. Hospitals would see a spike in uncompensated care and overcrowding of emergency rooms. Even people who still have insurance may not have anywhere to go for care. Hospitals, nursing homes and other providers operating on thin margins warn they could close. 'Seniors will struggle to afford long-term care. People with disabilities will lose critical healthcare coverage that allows them to work and live independently. Rural communities across America will be decimated from hospital closures, and people will lose their lives,' said Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a statement. 'It is unfathomable to see policymakers intentionally inflict so much damage on the people they represent.' Experts said it's nearly impossible to take almost $1 trillion out of Medicaid without impacting the entire health system, not just the people who lose insurance. By design, the group that would be hit the hardest are people who gained insurance when their states expanded Medicaid under ObamaCare. 'The bill particularly attempts to undermine the Medicaid expansion,' said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at health policy research organization KFF. 'It doesn't exactly repeal it, but many of the provisions target both expansion states and the expansion population.' The bill would achieve its savings in various ways, but the bulk of the cuts come from a strict national work requirement and new restrictions on state-levied taxes on health providers. The provider taxes were the second-largest Medicaid cut in the House bill, after the work requirements. The cuts are even larger under the Senate design. Those changes would reduce spending by nearly $191 billion over a decade, according to the CBO estimate. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then redirect to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Limiting provider taxes is a long-held conservative goal, as they argue states are gaming the current system and driving up federal Medicaid spending. But senators representing states with poorer, rural populations have objected to the scale of the provider tax cuts, including Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Tillis. The House bill would freeze the tax rate for most states, but the Senate version would require many states to lower their existing rates. As an incentive for senators uncomfortable with the provision, the bill includes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals. Overnight Monday, senators voted down an amendment from Collins to double the size of the fund and increase taxes on the ultra-wealthy, but the final version ultimately included $50 billion for the fund. Hospitals said the relief fund isn't enough to make up for the impacts of the bill, and they urged lawmakers to reject it in favor of the House version — which also would have enacted unprecedented Medicaid cuts, but was less damaging to rural providers. Even some Republicans sounded the alarm. Tillis focused his ire on the provider taxes and state-directed payments, arguing they were simply too harmful to his constituents. He warned his fellow Republicans that their support for the bill could boomerang and cost them politically. Hawley condemned the provider tax cuts and other Medicaid changes but voted for the bill anyway. Part of his reasoning, he said, was that the bill was changed to delay implementation of the cuts for another year. He also touted 'tax cuts for working families' and an extension of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Hawley in a statement after the vote urged the House to pass the bill quickly, while sounding a warning on Medicaid. 'Let me be clear, I will continue to do everything in my power to reverse future cuts to Medicaid. If Republicans want to be the party of the working class, we cannot cut health insurance for working people.' The other major Medicaid change in the bill is work requirements. For the first time in the history of the Medicaid program, the bill would require beneficiaries to prove they are working or in school at least 80 hours a month to keep their health insurance starting Dec. 31, 2026. The Senate version extends the requirement to low-income parents of children older than 14, in addition to childless adults without disabilities. States can apply for a 'good faith' exemption to delay the start until 2029, but it's up to the discretion of the Trump administration to grant it. Advocates said giving the administration power to delay coverage losses has the potential to politicize the work requirements, as the White House could grant waivers to important states Republicans need to win. The work requirements are projected to save about $325 billion over a decade, because millions of people would be moved off Medicaid rolls. Nearly six million people would eventually lose Medicaid for not meeting the House bill's work requirements, according to CBO. Work requirements 'are only money savers if people lose coverage. Otherwise they wouldn't be in this bill,' Ducas said. 'I think that's pretty clearly the intent.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
"How Does This Make Us Healthy Again?": People's Jaws Are On The Floor After RFK Jr. Admitted One Of His Health Initiatives Could Be Harmful
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has touted his plan to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), which includes stances backed by questionable scientific evidence. He has spoken out against vaccines, called on states to ban fluoride, and made ableist comments about autism. Just last week, he actually let it slip that he's well aware that at least one of those initiatives could have some terrible consequences. Related: On Fox's The Faulkner Focus, news anchor Harris Faulkner asked RFK, Jr. about his stance on removing fluoride from drinking water. In particular, she questioned him about dentists' concerns that children from low-income families may not be able to get the preventative care that they'd need to protect them from tooth decay. Kennedy replied, "You know, it is an issue. It's a balance. You're gonna see probably slightly more cavities." The secretary went on to say, "Although in Europe, where they banned fluoride, they did not see an uptick in cavities. The issue is, parents need to decide because the science is very clear on fluoride. The National Toxicity Program issued a said there's a direct inverse correlation between the amount of fluoride in your water and loss of IQ." The American Dental Association (ADA) released a statement in April 2025, saying that the ADA "believes that good oral health depends on proper diet, nutrition, oral hygiene, and optimally fluoridated water. Eighty years of community water fluoridation at optimal levels has proven to be safe and effective at reducing tooth decay to improve oral health." And not all European countries have banned fluoride in their drinking water. In May 2025, the BBC reported that some areas have naturally occurring fluoride in their water, while others choose to fluoridate their milk, salt, or bottled water. In addition, the National Toxicology Program's study that the secretary cited specifically says that "lower IQ in children" can occur with the consumption of water containing "more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter," which is twice the CDC-recommended saturation of 0.7 milligrams per liter. They added directly, "It is important to note that there were insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children's IQ." Related: Historically, there are cities in the US and internationally that have removed fluoride from their water supply and seen increased cavities as a result. The New York Times reported that Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, is reintroducing fluoride into its water supply after 10 years, starting just this week. They noted that "The Alberta Children's Hospital saw a stark increase in the number of children from Calgary who needed antibiotics to treat dental infections after fluoride was removed from the drinking water." Unsurprisingly, people on Reddit had some thoughts on the secretary's comments. "Could we, instead, maybe focus on banning lead in our drinking water? We'll tell him it's to reduce obesity." —Stank_Dukem "So, honestly asking says it's a balance…so what are we gaining for the increase in dental costs to the tune of $300/year average for all Americans?" —pixiegod Related: "I used to be a dental hygienist. All this will do is cause people who have no money to now have to spend it on dental, but they can't. They won't because they can't. Increasing poverty. I hate this MF." —Apprehensive_Cheek77 "For the kids and adults who don't have access to dental care for whatever reason, this is going to be devastating. It hurts nothing and helps those who need it most." —brookmachine "How does having more cavities in children's mouths make us great and healthy again?" —Impressive_Car_4222 Related: The conversation continued over on Twitter (X), with one user saying, "More cavities for kids in families who can't afford dental care." "Gonna see slightly more cavities, but luckily in exchange for that we're going to get absolutely no benefits whatsoever so I guess it's a fair tradeoff," said another. And finally, "This isn't public health. It's policy by privilege." If you'd like to watch the full clip, you can do so below. And I'd love to know: Are you concerned about the levels of fluoride in Americans' drinking water, or do you think it should be left as-is? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
How Trump's tax bill could cut Medicaid for millions of Americans
The Senate cleared President Donald Trump's domestic spending and tax cut bill that will enact steep cuts to the nation's safety-net health insurance program for low income families. In addition to delivering tax cuts and increasing immigration enforcement, what Trump has called the "Big Beautiful Bill" would cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, the state-federal health program for low-income families and the disabled. The bill is projected to eliminate insurance coverage for 11.8 million people over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Another 5 million could lose coverage if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made Affordable Care Act plans more affordable for consumers. The legislation amounts to "the biggest rollback in health care coverage in the history of the United States," said Joan Alker, a research professor and executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families. Vice President JD Vance, who cast the tiebreaking vote July 1 to pass the Senate bill 51-50, said in social media posts the Medicaid cuts are "immaterial" compared to savings the bill will fund through bolstered immigration enforcement. The House is scheduled to consider the legislation on July 2 in advance of Trump's self-imposed July 4th deadline for his signature domestic policy legislation. How will the legislation cut Medicaid? The legislation would require states to double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states, which administer Medicaid, would have to set up systems to verify a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation requires "able-bodied" Medicaid recipients to work 80 hours a month or qualify for an exemption, such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The original House version limited the work requirement to low-income adults without children, but the Senate version added the work requirement to parents of children older than 13. The legislation defines "able-bodied" people as those not medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks because of administrative miscues. What do hospitals and doctors think of bill? Medicaid insures 83 million low-income children and adults, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit. That represents more than 1 in 5 Americans. Health policy experts have warned the cuts could harm rural hospitals and doctors who serve a higher percentage of people enrolled in Medicaid. The Senate bill added a $50 billion rural health care fund, double the amount that an earlier version of the legislation proposed. Still, hospitals are "deeply disappointed" the bill cleared the Senate, said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, a trade group. Pollack said the $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts would cause "irreparable harm to our health care system," and reduce access to care for all Americans. Hospitals are required to diagnose and stabilize anyone who visits an emergency room. Eliminating coverage of nearly 12 million Americans will "drive up uncompensated care for hospitals and health systems," Pollack said. Pollack said hospitals might be forced to cut services and staff, and patients could face longer wait times in emergency rooms. Some rural hospitals and facilities in underserved communities could close, Pollack said. Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the cuts to Medicaid and a federal food assistance program "will make our country sicker, put children at risk of going hungry and make it harder for families to afford basic necessities" while delivering tax cuts. When will the Medicaid cuts take effect? Medicaid recipients won't immediately be impacted by the legislation. The bill sets a Jan. 1, 2027, deadline for states to begin twice-a-year eligibility checks and verify work or exemption status of non-disabled enrollees. However, some states already have submitted waivers to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to begin Medicaid work requirements. CMS might choose to approve the waivers and allow some states to launch Medicaid work requirements before January 2027, Alker said. A KFF survey found nearly 2 in 3 people on Medicaid are employed full or part time, and others would qualify for an exemption from the work requirement because they are caregivers or students. Just 8% were not working due to inability to find work, retirement or other reasons, KFF said. While the bill doesn't mandate work requirements before January 2027, states will likely need to plan for big changes before then, said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the KFF program on Medicaid and the uninsured. States will need to prepare for smaller Medicaid payments from the federal government while adding the extra administrative duties of verifying an enrollee's work or volunteer status. "Some states are anticipating this reduced revenue," Tolbert said. "At the same time, they are also required to make pretty costly changes to their eligibility systems." 'Death by a trillion cuts': Health care workers lobby Republicans in Congress Johannah Alabi's days usually consist of feeding, bathing, and caring for residents at two nursing homes in Bloomfield, Conn. She said most of her patients depend on government health insurance programs, so she is concerned about what will happen to them and her job if Trump signs the bill into law. Medicaid is the primary payer for 63% of nursing home facility residents and an additional 13% rely on Medicare as their primary payer, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco. 'If some of that money is going to be taken away, something has to give,' Alabi said. 'It's going to come down to the resident care. It's going to come down to the food. It's going to come down to the activities.' That's why she was inspired to join Service Employees International Union members to lobby lawmakers to vote against the bill last week. They arrived at the Capitol with signs reading, 'Death by a trillion cuts,' and wearing shirts with the message, 'Republican cuts kill.' Jennifer Woods, another SEIU member who works in the claims department at Kaiser Permanente, ran into Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during her trip to Washington. She said she tried to explain how cuts could 'ruin people's lives' and potentially lead to some patients' deaths as she followed him through the Capitol building. 'He just shook his head and would keep going,' Woods said. 'He didn't really say anything. None of them did.'
