Yep, there's a lower price limit for that demographic. Unfortunately it's because males under 25 are statistically more likely to wreck their car than other people. Works for the group, sucks for the responsible individual.
Only way out of it completely is to age up, sorry.
FYI - I find it interesting that it's legal to discriminate against men in auto insurance due to increased risk, but now illegal to discriminate against women in health insurance due to increased risk. But that's just another double standard. Yay for statistical discrimination!
When I was still driving, I was one of the most responsible drivers on the road (NEVER got a ticket, for example). Didn't count for much against the fact that I was born male, nor did I have any choice to not purchase insurance. IMO going carless was a major hit against the unfair system.
That's the rub, isn't it. You may go your entire life and never use your car insurance, the vast majority of people will leverage heath care. Note I said care and not insurance.
Insurance vehicles are typically lower-risk things you don't ever want to leverage. Much better to be the person that never had a claim on their home than the guy who had a tree fall through it. Much much better to pay a term life insurance policy for years and never leverage it. And, of course, better to have never been in an auto accident as well. As for health care, most of us are going to leverage that, and some of us will leverage it rather hard. The rub is insurance companies can and should be able to price by demographics. Beric's life insurance is going to be much cheaper than mine all things being equal because I am twice his age. Is that "unfair" that I pay more for life insurance? Not at all, the insurance company is under zero obligations to be fair. When we buy life insurance we are quite simply making a bet with the insurance company. My insurance company is currently betting me $40 a month for twenty years that I won't die. I rather hope to keep losing that bet! My insurance company gets to set the rate because
they are incurring all of the risk. It's very fair. It's absolutely no different with auto insurance.
As for health care, insurance companies have to make a buck there as well. And if we simply allowed insurance companies to set rates based on the actual health and age of the patient, well guess what, insurance companies quite simply would not offer policies to clients they were reasonably sure would cost them buckets of money. In EXACTLY the same way insurance companies won't issue life insurance policies to someone with cancer or auto insurance to someone with three DUIs on their record. Not because insurance companies are cold-hearted, but because the nature of insurance is based on calculated gambles that favor the "house" (the insurance company) over a broad spectrum.
This is what is fundamentally broken in US health care. We think of our health insurance like other insurance vehicles when it quite clearly isn't. We as a society do not want to offer different rates - or none at all - to people who are simply unhealthy, go through maternity, or are older and unwell.
The sooner we Americans come around to the notion that health care is just another
service, like the police department, fire department, public schools, roads, etc. and everyone both funds and leverages it as required, the better off we will be.
AKA single payer.