We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I guess it depends on how strictly one wishes to define "disease." I would not be willing to term being fat or obese a disease but as a normal variant as a result of life style, physical tendencies, psychological tendencies, culture, subculture, and the like. Western cultures now value youthful slimness and stylish fitness, but a century ago being fat was considered prosperous, important, "weighty."
For a while there, it seemed as if obesity were almost a requirement of a US President. I think Trump is the fattest President we will have had in a long time. Who was the last fat President of the US, not counting Bill Clinton whose weight varied a good deal and who now looks underfed if not ill?
I think it's a stretch to term a physical condition a "disease." We do not term physical weakness "a disease," or being "uinderweight" unless you have anorexia. Many or maybe even most fat people seem comfortable with it, and accept the trade-off of tasty carbs vs. being light on their feet.
Being overweight is not in itself a disease, but it can be a (contributing) symptom of a variety of diseases, many of which don't get diagnosed these days as a result of our obsession to blame everything on someone's being overweight rather than search for root causes.
Someone's overweight and visits a doctor, they tend to get told to eat less and their problems will go away.
If a doctor would take them seriously and see their weight problems as part of their overall condition rather than as the root cause of it, they'd possibly go home with a diagnosis, hopefully a treatment regime (which might include a diet), and/or a referral to a specialist for further testing and treatment of something that might end up life threatening or debilitating.
Back in the day, being "fat" meant you had enough to eat. Which, as food was relatively expensive and famines happened, was considered a "good thing", and lucky the family for whom this was true.
What is today considered "overweight" would have been considered normal and desirable in previous generations. It meant one was generally well fed. Only since the camera turned people into two-dimensional photos did the obsession with weight really begin. The camera, by its nature, adds pounds; the skinny folk looked "normal" and normal folk looked "overweight" when photographed. And so began the quest for thinness.
Some studies have looked at the disadvantage of being too thin, and have found that the too thin are - generally speaking - less healthy than the plumpish ones. Unless one's obesity is such that it interferes with the ability to work (paid or otherwise), then the state should butt out. Actually, the state should probably butt out altogether but - if it MUST interfere - should interfere only in cases of gross obesity or extreme skinniness.
Well, President Taft was pretty big, and apparently needed a special bathtub in the White House. But then he went on to be Chief Justice, a position in which the voluminous robes of office provide some protection from sarcastic comments about bulk.