What is going to hurt me most is the higher "at risk" that we have to pay. It's not what I pay for health insurance that bothers me it's paying for things only younger (kids and new mothers ) folks need and use..... why not have a package for older folks with older folks needs?

@dee: simple answer - risk equalization. If your package didn't include "things younger needs", a young adult package wouldn't include "things only senior needs". The result, which is quite obvious: older people would have to pay much more, like more than € 1000 per month in insurance since older people on average get sick more often then younger ones.

I see it as much simpler: health insurance should be made optional, now with this own risk so criminally high. Of course, to prevent "Oh, the government coughs up all I can't", those who don't insure will get plenty of risks (one example: such debts never expire, and as long as you have such a debt, you're not allowed to let it grow (health insurance mandatory for such a time)).

You just know own risk is criminally high, when you have to take medication each and every day and your health insurance pays 0,0 for it despite being insured for that type of medicine. Wish own risk worked at least like "you pay half, insurance company pays half", that'd be much more fair.

Dee, the average cost of health care is more than Eu 5,000 per person including children (who pay nothing).
EU 90Bn per year or 15% of GDP
Thus the insurance premium from adults only covers 16%, the rest is from taxation.
Most of the cost is on older people who pay little tax, but use most of the resources.
Andre.L is in the correct direction but his figures are too low. If elderly people pay on basis of their risk to the system then 1000 per month does not finance their direct costs, certainly if there are extras as well.
That we subsidise is the principal of a welfare state - get real

Andre L. If older people were