Broken model. Some states are monetarily poor, yet nevertheless are an essential part of the American team.
Incorrect. The "broken model" would be the fed telling each state how to run it's affairs with regard to healthcare. The fed has no place telling individual states what kind of healthcare policy they must have. If socialized medicine is a broken policy on the state level, then it's also a broken model on the national level. Really there's no better way to do it; if you think universal healthcare is so great, put your money where your mouth is and show us how great it is, by doing it in your state. Those who dislike the healthcare policy in their own state, can go to another. We can have a real time laboratory to see what kinds of policies are the most functional. No better way to evangelize Marxism than by demonstrating how functional it is, right? What are you guys so afraid of? LOL!
If a hail storm wipes out the cars in a neighborhood, and the (just one, for example) auto insurance company has thus lost money in that neighborhood, is it necessarily the case that this auto insurance company will not be profitable in general?
Not at all, and any state ought be plenty large enough to cover any "neighborhood". Many insurance companies exist which have fewer policy holders than our smallest state. Therefore, so long as the policy is viable, it should be reach self efficacy in any state. I mean, you aren't AFRAID of having an observation period and allowing everyone to choose what they want on the basis of observing different policies would you? If universal health care is truly the most viable and produces the best outcomes, having different states demonstrate it would be the best way to make the entire nation want it. If you believe in the policy you endorse, it would seem that you'd relish that idea.
If your company had a division that consistently lost money is it still an essential part of the company team?
That's a fair question, but the answer really depends on whether you are referring to a business division, or a departmental division. No, we of course cannot have a business division consistently losing money, though they occasionally do with the vagaries of time, market conditions, and (all too often) customer expectations (think scope creep) in our sector. However, several departments are always "cost centers", not profit centers. I think you can say this relates to the difference between necessity and sufficiency.
Back to your original comment/topic, why would a particular state be a "necessary" part of a larger country? If that state is consistently an overall negative for the rest of that country? Countries/boarders have been dissolved, moved or changed many many times throughout history.
I'm with Paul. Unlike the Iranians, the Soviets actually had thousands of nuclear weapons (and Russia still has them). But we maintained diplomatic relations with the Soviets at all times. Talking with a dangerous foe is far better than labeling them the Axis of Evil and trying to start a war on them. I don't like the leaders of Iran but they are not psychotic. And no, they're not going to nuke the U.S. or Israel, as both countries are capable of nuking them back much, much worse.