Okay, I think I see where you are coming from. Let me clarify what I said.

> you suggested that spending a larger fraction of gdp on healthcare was a bad thing.

I was probably in a rush when I wrote 'do more' and so apologise for any confusion. My meaning was not communicated well. If the data say anything, it is that the way the money is spent counts more than how much money is spent. That being said, getting the medical establishment and Big Pharma to take a pay cut is a Herculean task.

> "military spending" is the typical reply

I suppose for some it is, and the US does spend plenty on war. But I would agree with what I understand as your underlying point: The money needs to be spent better before more money is spent on anything.