While I wouldn't put it first on my list, I can see where CPR and first aid training would be a valuable practical skill.
Your 'consumer things' should probably wait for later, since teaching a 14-year-old about fancy banking is probably a waste. Around 17 or 18, though, its probably a different story. When I was 14 or 15, I took classes on business law and civil law. I remember nothing of it, and passed both with ease.
Also, your third choices are nice, and I see much value in teaching them to high school students, but I don't know that they would cut down on much of anything. Many doctors still smoke, if you know what I'm saying.
The problem with an 'ideal' curriculum is that the current system is not ideal, and is probably far from it. It certainly isn't the worst system, and I feel that it is better than many news reports would have us believe, but there is a lot of room at the top. But to get a more ideal system put into place, you would have to assuage parents' fears that their children are going to learn at least everything the parents learned in school. No English Lit class? Shock. Horror. No 'history'? No 'math'? No way. As pointless and unrealistic as the current scholastic divisions between 'branches' of human thought are, any extreme change in it will be met with a lot of resistance.
By the way, what I mean by divisions is this: English, History, Math, and Science are generally expected class-types to be seen on most or all class schedules. There is a lot of overlap here, especially between 'Math' and 'Science.' So what generally ends up happening is a student learns, say, a formula in a science class, and then learns it in math class the next day. Waste. Why not have two 'Science' classes instead, where there is time to go deeper into said formula, describing it, how it was developed, what led to its discovery, what formula if any was used to describe the phenomenon previously, etc. That's history, too. Three subjects overlapping.
An interesting suggestion by Neil Postman is to eliminate 'history' and 'math' and teach the remaining subjects as 'histories.' I feel this would be a more ideal system. Another improvement I would add is consistency or internal cohesion. For example, in high school, on the rare occasion that I would have to do a report for a class that wasn't 'English,' the bar was set far lower. Citations weren't always required, spelling errors weren't particularly minded, and as long as the grammar knob was set to 'minimal intelligibility' everything was fine. That is crap. Lessons learned in a different class are thrown aside immediately, proving in the minds of many students that it isn't necessary.
Also, more reports, less homework. Well-written essays and reports tend to put things students have learned into place, IMO, especially position pieces. Arguing for or against points constantly can tend to foster a deeper sort of learning than rote memorization.
Generally, homework does just the opposite. For example, 'Math' homework generally emphasizes memorization and application of a formula or small group of formulas, often forgotten after the chapter or test is done with. This doesn't impart a deep understanding of the workings of a particular formula very often, but is more reminiscent of Pavlov's dogs. "When this, then that." The whole "write out your work" craze that was sweeping schools just as I graduated was a nice try, but it's still the same old shit, with more work forced upon the student. Instead of having to ring a bell for an 'A', you have to ring a bell, and toot a whistle. Education.
One more thing that would lead to a better education system: fewer 'standardized' tests/proficiency tests at arbitrary 'milestones.' The teachers at the schools that administer these tests have no idea what any given test contains. From my experiences, these tests often contain information students haven't been taught at that point, but may have been taught to them had they gone to a different school. Who decides what questions are relevant? It isn't anyone the student knows, or anyone who has presided over them in a classroom.
Alright, so I suppose I didn't really answer your question. There are so many things that I don't know, I don't think I can reliably answer your question. For any one thing I propose, there are probably five that I don't know about. What I _do_ think is that the key to a better education system isn't as simple as different classes. While many people hurrah at children learning Calculus in the fourth grade, I find myself wondering how much of that will be retained later on. People cheer when first-graders can recite the Gettysburg Address by memory, but I think it ends up meaning jack shit. Of course, if I understand correctly, people also cheer and hurrah when overpayed sacks of shit on talk shows shame troubled people into tears, and send troubled children to 'boot camp' or prison to 'teach them a lesson.'
So now you know. I think.