I’m really not enough of a politics junkie to know when this maneuver was used for the final language of a bill and when it was used for something else. It seems clear to me, however, that if the maneuver is constitutionally OK for one kind of House resolution, it’s OK for every kind of resolution.

Nothing is being “passed without actually being voted on”. There will be one vote, which will simultaneously have two effects: one described by the procedural rule, and one described in the text of the bill itself. Every Representative who votes on the bill will be perfectly aware of those two effects and can choose to vote yea or nay accordingly. And then the majority will rule, which is more than we get from the Senate.

OK, but I think it would be best to focus on the point that your opponents are arguing about, a final up or down vote on the final language of a bill, and not the red herring of how the sausage that comprises that bill has been made.

Especially in the current context where everyone has had a chance to analyze the 2,700 pages of the Senate bill that was passed ~ 2.5 months ago.

edit: Oops, was wrong about the jobless bill, n/m

Newt and Hastert have also made extensive use of this provision as well. It's tough to dig up news items on it as it wasn't controversial back in the day. Hastert was particularly keen on using it and the zenith of Bush's unpopularity as it allowed him to shield the president's massively unpopular legislation from house votes.