Your original statement could be interpreted in at least three ways:

1) Imagine if we (had already) spent that money on healthcare INSTEAD of defense

2) Imagine if we (had already) spent that money on healthcare IN ADDITION TO defense

3) Imagine if we were to (future) spend that equivalent money on healthcare

The results could be (or could have been):

1) We (and most of our allies) would have little defense. Although we might not have been invaded, allies might have been.

2) We would be broke. But have fewer health issues to need money for.

3) Because we are $20T in debt and healthcare is already 1/6 of our total economy, we'd have to make some tough choices. See #1 about defending allies.

With Putin getting wacky and China getting filthy rich it would be careless to not keep our defenses top-notch.

Constitutionally, the preamble's "provide for the common defense" is a lot more explicit about intent than "promote the general welfare."

For an armchair historian, I'm surprised you missed the fact that during WW II, the Imperial Japanese Army took control of two of the westernmost Aleutian Islands - Attu and Kiska, and also attacked the American base at Dutch Harbor by air. Don't forget the German U-boats off the coast of NC either. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 count in my book too.

Don't we spend more on defence than the next 10 or so countries combined? My point is that we spare no expense on the military industrial complex, but claim poverty when it comes to wellness, much to our peril.

I'll concede the Aleutian islands, but the U Boat menace and the other attacks you list were not "invasions".

Do you think a foreign enemy could physically hold significant geography in the lower 48?

We will perish under the weight of our own feckless vanity long before we're defeated militarily.

-------------------------
"Hey, where's Cricket?" - Kristi Noem's daughter.

Over the last eight years, how much did Obama cut military spending?

-------------------------
I was right.