Health targets or Health Sector Expansion?
Figure 1 has quite a few mistakes, so its meaninfulness is in doubt. You say that you have dropped "partnership" but it shows up in your Figure 1, under "poverty" . So, did you drop it? Also, why did you leave in other "nontopical" words like: access, progress, example, country, framework, and even time and today? All these words could mean a number of things with reference to aspirations for the new goals and so they obscure what you have set out to "measure" - the "relative unimportance" of health, I assume.
More serious, it is wrongheaded from you to gripe about the importance of food in Figure 1. People without food will not be healthy. You should perhaps be very alarmed about the size of the letters for "peace" as lack of peace is unquestionably very bad for health. There is little doubt that preventing disease is superior as a policy to financial protection in case of disease. Many of the larger words are for concepts that are really good for health. Even "education"!
What is a more inspirational goal :
1) healthy people who do not need health care OR
2) more costly healthcare systems tending to more ill people whose illness and injuries should have been prevented in the first place?
The first goal does not appear in the goals you set forth in the second half of the blog, especially when you argue that targets are needed "for outputs of the health system." From a social point of view the costs associated with such outputs are a deadweight loss when they refer to preventable diseases.
Figure 2 shows that there was much text about health earlier, and that this remains the case. It does not show that there is too little text about health. The emphasis on jobs , livelihoods and growth is to be welcome because progress on such indicators will make any necessary level of health care more affordable. And it may even directly improve mental health which is a large burden in the burden of disease studies you cite.