I don't think he's that clever, and I don't think he would want to set up another challenge that would result in the law being struck down on easily repairable procedural grounds. Think about what happened after Lopez. Congress re-passed the Gun Free School Zones Act with boilerplate interstate commerce language.
Insiders claim he was worried about the consequences of striking down Obama's signature legislation. To strike down the law after another challenge on the basis that it originated in the wrong house would be even worse than striking it down last month on substantive grounds.
It would create chaos. Every other revenue law would have its legislative history checked, and would be challenged, and struck down by the courts, if found to have been gutted and re-purposed by the senate.
Any laws struck down would be re-passed by the next sympathetic Congress and President.
It would be a hollow victory. The Roberts court would be viewed as both vindictive (striking down Obama's signature legislation) and wasting everyone's time.
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...”
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...”
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.”