In one section of this paper the author notes that the fat elderly die younger than their svelte counterparts. Yet in another section it is noted that the health costs associated with obesity are more related to perspective than weight. Those who accept their weight do not incur healthcare costs. So which is it? Does being obese cause health problems and take your life early or not? Do the elderly who feel fat and happy live out more normal life spans or not? At what juncture does actual physical disease overtake an individuals perception of their body composition?

Also pertinent to this subject is the fact that most of the elderly who may now be fat were not fat as children. How will this data relate to todays generation of children where obesity is at epidemic levels?

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.

So the answer is: Every meal everyone eats in his life will be pre-selected by a self-appointed expert, and prepared by someone required to be at the stove, presumably under penalty of law.

Of course. The only people who could possibly be opposed to that are extremely powerful food lobbyists. As you wrote.

We just read an article detailing how the fat people aren't bankrupting us and it's the skinny folks who end up costing more. So, this naturally leads to a proposal to get the Food Police involved?

Note there was also a recent study showing people commonly categorized as "overweight" actually survive some diseases better than skinnier people.

"Note there was also a recent study showing people commonly categorized as "overweight" actually survive some diseases better than skinnier people."

Diseases that cause you to waste away? ;-)

I agree there's some weird reasoning here. "You're costing us money in the short-term because you're fat, but saving us money in the long-term because you die sooner. But you're not really costing more money because you're fat, it's because you think you're fat. Stop thinking you're fat, then hurry up and die because you're fat."

I think something important that's being missed is that some diseases associated with obesity don't always strike obese people! You can have a normal BMI and still have high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Some adults grew up with Type 1 diabetes through no fault of their own, just one of those childhood diseases that have happened for generations. I personally have what is considered an above "normal" BMI but do not have high BP or cholesterol problems or diabetes.

I'm just saying that you can't always trust the numbers.