The federal government alone spends $1.9 trillion annually on healthcare. That's enough to buy almost a million Tomahawk missiles every year. The total production will be around 9,000 missiles over 46 years, or less than 200 per year. We do not meaningfully choose between paying for healthcare domestically and blowing up foreigners. Even overthrowing Iraq's government and trying to make it a democracy only cost about $2.4 trillion over 10 years.

The US, by all evidence, spends more on its non-universal, gap-prone, healthcare system than any reasonable (single-payer, government-provided, or mostly private insurance with universal guarantee) universal healthcare system would cost; the US spends ludicrously more than any other country per capita, and much more than most universal systems on a per GDP basis (heck, the government side of the US system alone costs a greater share of GDP than some universal systems, and more per capita than basically any of them, even without counting the larger private side.)

The US doesn't deny local citizens healthcare so that some people far away can be blown up. If anything, it limits its ability to blow people up far away with all the extra money it is spending locally to prevent people from getting healthcare.

But the US has lots of money, so it still finds quite a bit for blowing people up far away.

Healthcare spend, not including state and local governments, is many multiples of military spend:

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

There's apparently at one least cruise missile variant that basically mounts a sword on the warhead with a thin fairing. It's apparently used for killing a single target

With the amount of money printing going on, it is really insincere for them to create that false dichotomy anyway. It was never about which one out of the two we could afford.