Not really. It's a matter of risk pooling and public good. In health insurance, for example, it's understandable for a healthy person to pay a premium higher than the value of the services he actually receives. In exchange, if he suddenly gets in a car accident, an expensive procedure may be affordable. Additionally, his disabled neighbor may be able to afford his otherwise extremely expensive care. This sort of scheme only works effectively when everyone participates, especially the healthy, low-cost folks, who bring down the cost for everyone else.
The same or similar concepts apply in unemployment insurance. Someone with a stable job may not feel he needs unemployment insurance, but paying into the system makes the system possible. If only the unemployed and underemployed paid for unemployment insurance, we wouldn't have such a thing.
With education, things are a little different. There are some people who will never have children to benefit from paying for public education, but these people indirectly benefit from living in an educated society. I don't have children, but I'm more than happy to contribute to public education, since I value literacy not only in myself but in others.
Arts (e.g., your TV, symphony, and museum examples) are basically an extension of education, though I suspect some people would probably argue against me there.
Infrastructure in rural areas is expensive, but in my experience, at least, those rural areas are often poorer than the more urban areas. Your options seem to be (a) cut those people off from society, (b) subsidize their infrastructure, or (c) pay them to move elsewhere. I think (b) is the most reasonable option.
In the end, the people in the most need generally have the least to offer, so the people with the most to offer either have to subsidize, or the least have to go starving. Universal, progressive taxation seems like a very reasonable way to accomplish the goals of a civilized society.
Now I'm assuming you're strictly talking about health insurance (though the same concept applies to homeowner's insurance, etc.), but isn't subsidizing high-risk/high-cost subscribers inherent in some forms of insurance? Take a pension, for example. Some people will live much longer than expected; some will die a year after they retire. The only way to account for this, other than periodically adjusting each retiree's income based on how unhealthy they are, is to pay for the pension of one ancient retiree with the funds from one who died young.
This causes problems, to be sure, in that it disincentivises some, but not all wellfare recipients from trying to escape their poverty, but it prevents people from dying of hunger in the streets, which is, imho, a good thing.
The government takes away your "right" to find your own balance between opportunity and security. The government takes away your choice and your power as a consumer to discriminate between different suppliers, which causes those suppliers to be worse than they might otherwise be. For some things, like health care, the assumption is broadly correct, if the quality controls work (that's a big if). For most other things it is not correct at all.
Not everybody wants to retire at the same age or at all. Not everybody wants to secure the same pension or start saving for it at the exact same time of their life. Not everybody wants to go to university. Not everybody wants to have children or send them to the exact same (mostly broken) type of school.
Not everybody wants to buy expensive protection against being fired or getting sick for a week. Not everybody wants to support the local opera house, museums, the government's very own TV network or that network's very own classical orchestra. Not everybody wants to subsidise railway lines to remote parts of the country or the post office there.
And then there's the problem that some groups of people that are close to the government or belong to well unionised traditional industries are getting a lot more out of it than everybody else. The system isn't driven by need, it's driven by affiliation. Affiliations are a complex web and hence entitlements are organised in an extremely complex and ineffecient way that makes people want to stay put once they have a achieved a certain entitlement status.
At the end of the day, we're paying 50% into government coffers and yet we have widespread poverty in many European countries because the poor are a minority without much of a say in anything.
I'm not arguing for letting people go hungry, untreated and homeless when they cannot help themselves. I'm arguing for redistributing money instead of forcing canned buying decisions on everybody. I'm convinced that catching those who fall does not take 50% of all monies earned.