"In the former case, the correlation coefficient between the two activities is 1 (because they are the same activity)."

Yes, but in the "real" world, each person processes these foods differently (i.e. different levels of HDLs and LDLs), have different levels of fitness and often live to a ripe old age regardless of what they eat (until they get cancer from smoking or some other unrelated travisty). Thus your statement is good, in principle, however, it is not a coefficent of 1 rather less than one in practice.

One final thought:

"… you comment about tattoo bearers and reckless lifestyles. (And even that particular statement is ridiculous, given the prevalence of tattoos in society nowadays.)"

What is this based upon? There are certainly a prevalence of males in your age group that drive cars… why are you still paying high car insurance rates? Guess you’ll find out if/when you take out a personal health insurance policy.

cfos wrote:
But before delving further into population examples, please explain how these comments are mutually exclusive:

"(i. e., those who eat more unhealthy foods eat more unhealthy foods, which, in and of themselves, can cause health-related problems). I was not making a claim such as, "those who eat large quantities of unhealthy foods are more likely to engage in some other unhealthy activities,"

The first is claim that some individuals engage in an activity which is likely to have negative health consequences. The second is a claim that an individual is more likely to engage in some dangerous activities because he or she has engaged in another specific activity. In the former case, the correlation coefficient between the two activities is 1 (because they are the same activity). In the latter, the correlation coefficient (although possibly positive and possibly large in absolute value), is certainly less than 1.

It misses the mark when discussing CAR insurance, not PERSONAL health insurance which is where I thought you were going based upon your statement:

"To give a more apropos argument: if people fill their gullets with loads of fatty foods, and they induce related health problems, then my insurance rates are affected, and I don’t like that. "

How does eating fatty foods causally affect your car insurance — which is based upon your male cohort (as you illustrated)?

"I could easily argue that automobile drivers are themselves only a subset of the general citizenry, and that a good proportion of the populace eats at restaurant at least occasionally."

*L* Ok, I addressed this issue above in terms of the populance, but to clarify. Yes, the drivers are a subset of the general citizenry. This is, of course, region specific (i.e. there are not many citizens of NYC that actually know how to drive) and age specific (generally 16 to get a license). Anyone can go to a resturant at any age, with or without driving and with or without a license (i.e. you don’t need a license to eat). Some people go out to eat more often than others, however there is only a subset of that population that eat food made with trans-fat. So, yes, there are obviously countless ways to further define and divide the population. That is not my issue.

"I was simply utilizing the reflexive property of logic (i. e., those who eat more unhealthy foods eat more unhealthy foods, which, in and of themselves, can cause health-related problems). I was not making a claim such as, "those who eat large quantities of unhealthy foods are more likely to engage in some other unhealthy activities," which is logically parallel to you comment about tattoo bearers and reckless lifestyles. (And even that particular statement is ridiculous, given the prevalence of tattoos in society nowadays.) "

Use logic any way you like. My supposition was based on the belief that you were speaking of HEALTH insurance so this is not where I was going.

But having said that… you are using seat-belt/car insurance as an example; your example isn’t parallel. As far as I know the seat-belt law is nationwide (Trans-fat is NYC restricted, yes population again). Car insurance rates are based on statistics compiled by data crunchers. Car insurance, across the US is higher for males in your cohort anywhere in the US regardless of whether or not there is a seatbelt law (other factors surely weigh in such as alcohol-related accidents in this population that account for the increased premium). Furthermore, the CAR insurance companies are thinking of risk/profit– things that really don’t apply to trans fat (unless there is some backdoor politics that are trying to promote the "healthy resturants" that never used trans-fat). Finally, should you get married, age, etc., your insurance rates will go down. Trans-fat still in place regardless of age or marital status.

But before delving further into population examples, please explain how these comments are mutually exclusive:

"(i. e., those who eat more unhealthy foods eat more unhealthy foods, which, in and of themselves, can cause health-related problems). I was not making a claim such as, "those who eat large quantities of unhealthy foods are more likely to engage in some other unhealthy activities,"

cfos wrote:
I’m not an insurance agent, although I don’t know that your rates would be change due to that (if we are talking about the same thing). Having gone through the process of the interview/check-up for an insurance policy, I saw only questions relating to me. Having said that, if an insurance agent saw your tat, THAT might raise the rates due to the risk of HepC and lifestyles usually associated with tat-bearing folk.

As an unmarried male of 27 years, I have to pay relatively high car insurance rates. This is due to the fact that many single males in my age range are not the most careful drivers. As insurance companies cannot (easily) differentiate the safe drivers from the unsafe, everyone in my class must pay more. It is the lack of knowledge on the part of the company that leads to higher rates for all.

This was mainly the point that I was invoking earlier; it had nothing to do with the companies discriminating in any way (beyond the lawful separation into risk classes), but rather the fact that, if more individuals of any given class require more payouts on behalf of the insurance company, then the premiums of all individuals withing a that class will necessarily be higher.

Therefore, your tattoo ploy misses the mark. In my case, I was simply utilizing the reflexive property of logic (i. e., those who eat more unhealthy foods eat more unhealthy foods, which, in and of themselves, can cause health-related problems). I was not making a claim such as, "those who eat large quantities of unhealthy foods are more likely to engage in some other unhealthy activities," which is logically parallel to you comment about tattoo bearers and reckless lifestyles. (And even that particular statement is ridiculous, given the prevalence of tattoos in society nowadays.)

cfos wrote:
Also, I see where you are going, but I disagree with the comparison: the seat-belt laws pertain to citizens in a given state. The Trans-fat ban, to my knowledge only applies to restaurants which is a subset of citizens.

I don’t really recall addressing the issue of scope, but if you wish to argue that it is important, I could easily argue that automobile drivers are themselves only a subset of the general citizenry, and that a good proportion of the populace eats at restaurant at least occasionally.

I’m not an insurance agent, although I don’t know that your rates would be change due to that (if we are talking about the same thing). Having gone through the process of the interview/check-up for an insurance policy, I saw only questions relating to me. Having said that, if an insurance agent saw your tat, THAT might raise the rates due to the risk of HepC and lifestyles usually associated with tat-bearing folk.

Also, I see where you are going, but I disagree with the comparison: the seat-belt laws pertain to citizens in a given state. The Trans-fat ban, to my knowledge only applies to restuarants which is a subset of citizens. It is a shame about your sister not wearing belts, but like you said not everyone does things in their best interest.

I can still get good cheeze fries where I live. Unfortunately, there are no gravy fries.

I will make an example that seems silly, but is interestingly enough grounded in reality: my headstrong sister refuses to wear a seatbelt. We have gotten into arguments over this, which usually devolve into her saying, "you can’t control me!" But I digress.

My sister has two daughters and a son. Were she ever to get into an accident and experience a serious injury or death because she did not wear a seatbelt, my nieces and nephew would be rendered motherless.

Now, of course we can argue whether or not a seatbelt law would be effective here. With perfect enforcement, such a thing would work, but, realistically, the law may not persuade her to wear a seat belt. But I would argue that the theory of the law is sound.

To give a more apropos argument: if people fill their gullets with loads of fatty foods, and they induce related health problems, then my insurance rates are affected, and I don’t like that.

So, the problem with your argument is that it assumes that every person is an island and that the actions of one individual have no effect on others. Clearly this is not the case. Obviously many laws seek to curb selfish acts with can have a negative impact on others.

I am not saying that individual rights should be ignored, and I may be speaking more generally than about the trans fat issue, but I believe that there should be some notion of group utility invoked.