[publiusF27]

Social Security, general welfare, Helvering, Flemming.

I already said this would be similar if SS were privatized, above, but it has not been and is just a government program. What was said in dicta about the general welfare clause is not what was held in Helvering:

(2) The tax upon employers is a valid excise or duty upon the relation of employment. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, ante, p. 548. P. 645.

The tax is valid, and therefore the program is a valid exercise of that power. Has the general welfare clause ever been used as a stand-alone grant of power, not in conjunction with enumerated powers?

It's not in conjunction with the taxing power here for the reasons I gave. Why do you think the courts in those cases were distinguishing the tax from a penalty?

[Mojave]

I already said this would be similar if SS were privatized, above, but it has not been and is just a government program.

1. Red herring. 2. Wrong anyway.

Medicaid, a joint federal-state insurance program, was established by the Social Security Act of 1965. Here in Florida, with the concurrence of HHS, Medicaid services components of Social Security have been selectively privatized and are administered through private managed care organizations. Legislation has been proposed in Florida this year to extend that Medicaid privatization to all qualified Social Security recipients living in the state.

What was said in dicta about the general welfare clause is not what was held in Helvering:

Absolutely wrong. It was decisional, NOT dicta. The court directly addressed questions expressly posed to the court by petitioners, the United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the United States Collector for the District of Massachusetts. Please don't beg the question.

Has the general welfare clause ever been used as a stand-alone grant of power, not in conjunction with enumerated powers?

Is that what the Health Care Bill does? Don't insinuate, quote.

Why do you think the courts in those cases were distinguishing the tax from a penalty?

Not for any reason relevant to the overlapping and Constitutionally indistinguishable (or at least so far not distinguished) Social Security and Health Care laws.

I don't see how the Supreme Court will find the latter is unconstitutional without it being clearly distinguished from the former. (Remember your original question?)

So far, I haven't seen any facts or cites meeting that burden even slightly.