No, I'm well aware of the history of those decisions.
The Butler case (the most recent of the cases you cited) was decided in 1936, one year before "the switch in time that saved nine." In early 1937, there was an abrupt change in the opinions of the Supreme Court on the question of federal power. One of the decisions in 1937 (post-"switch") found that the Social Security program was constitutional.
You began this exchange by pointing out that there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes a "federal public healthcare program." i just pointed out that that analysis would render unconstitutional the Medicare program and that, while you and I might believe that program is unconstitutional, no one who is close to any political or judicial lever of power in this country agrees with us. And, when I say no one, I mean no one.
Consider that for many generations, possibly from the time that the Constitution was ratified, parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, the power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate public healthcare purposes not one of the fed's delegated powers.
As a consequence of epidemic ignorance of the federal government's constitutionally limited powers by FDR's time, voters simply did not question that the states had never granted the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific powers to establish many of FDR's "New Deal" federal spending programs that he encouraged Congress to establish.
But given FDR's popularity, I don't understand why he didn't encourage Congress to propose appropriate amendments to the Constitution to the states for his programs. Then, given that the states had chosen to ratify FDR's amendments, Congress would have had the constitutional authority that it needed to establish FDR's government spending programs.
Instead, FDR made a fool of himself with his plan to increase the number of justices as if he didn't understand the Constitution's amendment process.
Regarding what judges and lawmakers would say about the constitutionally of Medicare, please consider the following. The basic reason, imo, that post-FDR, institutionally indoctrinated judges and federal lawmakers would say that Medicare is constitutional is likely because they are as clueless or indifferent about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as presidents who appointed them and the voters who elected them are. I suspect that, unless they lurk in FR, they have never seen the excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions that were previously posted.
Also, note that many corrupt federal lawmakers probably ran for office just so that they could fill their pockets with their "fair share" of the tsunami of constitutionally indefensible taxes that are going to DC. Here's the relevant excerpt from Gibbons v. Ogden again.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.