I don't consider that a valid comparison at all, but more importantly, it doesn't address the issue in my opinion. If your point were valid, I could buy myself health insurance from age 60-100 for a fourth of the cost if I pay for it when I'm 40. That isn't possible, and there is no financial incentive or logic for it to be possible.
The point here is paying vastly different amounts for the exact same coverage, based on a couple year difference in the timeframe of the coverage purchase, not the timeframe/miles that are covered.
I appreciate your reply, I really do, but I don't think anything in your reply in any way justifies or explains the cost difference for the exact same coverage (60,001 - 100,000 miles).
Maybe it's just me. shrug.