Underwriters use BMI when assessing mortality risk. If BMI didn’t correlate with death, the underwriters wouldn’t use it.Sometimes it's tricky to spot whether you are just not seeing the other person's viewpoint, but I think this undermines itself, it's the highlighted part that's telling.
I don't know how BMI in general correlates with a higher death rate?, but I think it's also fair to note, that the assertion of such 'correlation', is an opportunity for the insurance industry-amongst others. To the extent that it's hard to see how they'd have any incentive to find out, especially if their targets are somewhat accepting of the situation.
If it is generally accepted by enough people with influence that fatness increases mortality in a steady line, then that is an opportunity for them to raise premiums for a substantive proportion of their customers, in one fell swoop.
Whether their pay outs match that supposition is another story isn't? The argument is framed wholly on their terms and who is going to 'disprove' it? This is why we are having so much trouble putting our point across it's framed in a way that only allows for one POV and that is the one that backs up the crisis. So we can't actually win it, due to our position-no where.
We actually need to introduce our own framing, rather than succumb to other people's all the time. It's a very hard habit to get out of though because if you've spent years believing and acting on these beliefs yourself, it's just a continuum, which is why it is so important to overcome this. Even more than winning or losing an argument, it's important for the recovery process.