[Pollster1]

No. The bill originated in the House. However, it was an unrelated bill on veterans issues. The Senate took that bill number as a shell, substituted the healthcare language and rammed that through reconciliation. The House did ultimately vote on it... but the original language was not on the bill originated by the House.

That is entirely correct. In theory, the Supremes could rule that the Senate's replacement of a bill in whole with completely unrelated text constitutes a new bill and thus violates the Constitution's requirement that tax bills originate in the House. In practice, we'll lose on this one because it has been done and tolerated many times. It's a shame too - freedom was a wonderful idea while it lasted.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

In theory, the Supremes could rule that the Senate's replacement of a bill in whole with completely unrelated text constitutes a new bill and thus violates the Constitution's requirement that tax bills originate in the House.

In theory. In actuality, no one on that bench has the guts.

In theory, I should be a millionaire.

[mrsmith]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/#ixzz2PPyewf3M

“... a number of cases in which courts upheld shell bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.

“Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue,” said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. “Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable.””

The ‘catch’ is that this is the first case where the Senate replaced a non-tax bill with a tax bill.
Interesting that the argument has never been made before- I wonder if the Senate has never done this?