Indeed: the current numbers are based on later in life obesity, which also means lower rates of morbidity as well as obesity-related illnesses that actually are quite expensive to treat: exhibit A being type 2 diabetes, which is skyrocketing nation-wide. Secondly, this whole thing completely leaves out the largest part of the equation: food quality, price and availability. Food manufacturers have put very high amounts of sugars in particular in even staples such as bread (just compare the sweetness of our crappy bread with breads abroad). Further, in study after study, nutritional interventions have extremely limited, and usually only short-term effects on people's diets. Some prominent nutritionists are now advocating the removal of unhealthy foods (or at least limiting their availability) in order to reduce obesity, because people have proven they have terrible regimens and will power. We can bitch about how weak-willed people are, but that doesn't make them healthier. Combatting obesity is admirable and a must, however it shouldn't really be couched in terms of how much it costs us. The discussion should be focused on improving our food choices, improving lifestyles, and educating kids properly about good nutrition. And if Obama or Clinton are serious about this, they are going to have to take on some extremely powerful food lobbyists.