Governments fund things that are not necessary all the time - be it because it supports a core belief or to enhance quality of life.
I had one of my three children at home with a midwife. I am glad the government of Ontario typically (not always) believes in choice - ergo my ability to choose a birth location with the type of care attendant I wanted.
I disagree that your example illustrates paying for an enhancement rather than a necessity. The necessity is some provision of childbirth care; childbirth care being acute care (as opposed to the prophylactic nature - outside of epidemics - for vaccination). Homebirth with a midwife is considerably cheaper than a hospital birth with a midwife or a hospital birth with a doctor so by choosing to homebirth you saved the taxpayer's money.
This is for BC
but I would think the premise would be similar for ON.
There is also no current alternative to MMR, and RD can take some time.
Previous to the MMR (and for some years concurrently) , there were monovalent vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella.
From the CDC:
On October 21, 2009, Merck announced that based on input from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), professional societies, scientific leaders, and customers, Merck has decided not to resume production of ATTENUVAX® (Measles Virus Vaccine Live), MUMPSVAX® (Mumps Virus Vaccine Live), and MERUVAX®II (Rubella Virus Vaccine Live).
From the CDC pink book
In 1977, one dose of mumps-containing vaccine was routinely recommended for all children 12 months of age and older. In 1989, children began receiving two doses of mumps vaccine because of the implementation of a two-dose measles vaccination policy using the combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. In 2006, a two-dose mumps vaccine policy was recommended for school-aged children, students at post high school educational institutions, healthcare personnel, and international travelers.
It is interesting that only one dose was required up until they started combining the mumps vaccine with rubella and measles.
A single dose induced an antibody response in approximately 97 percent of susceptible children and 93 percent of susceptible adults.
And with the combined MMR:
The mumps component of the MMR vaccine is about 88% (range: 66-95%) effective when a person gets two doses; one dose is about 78% (range: 49%−92%) effective.
I think there is a definite issue with combining mumps vaccine with the other live virus vaccines. Merck wouldn't have been playing with the virus load otherwise. I am making the argument that a 3rd MMR would be a waste of tax payer money; money that could be better spent elsewhere. I am not arguing against a taxpayer funded monovalent mumps vaccine and I would argue for scrapping the MMR altogether and having only monovalent vaccines. I do feel that live virus vaccines would be better given in isolation and most likely would have the added benefit of overall taxpayer savings due to less injuries etc.