So you are a consensus type? Global Warming must be big with you.
As for the structuring I presented, try your logic with the 2nd Amendment and see if you do not change your thinking to how I have demonstrated:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Your logic suggests that the right of the people is anchored upon the militia. SCOTUS and I disagree. Now look at how it was originally approved by TJ:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Notice the lack of a couple of commas? These folks were very smart and understood that commas separate clauses which is why it was ratified with the additional commas. 42 U.S. Code § 18115 also contains clauses, all separated by commas. My logic is sound. You, yourself admit to not being A-one on punctuation but weigh in for 'consensus'?
No, I’m not saying I weigh in on consensus alone, in fact I am not a proponent of it necessarily. What I did say is that the rest of the statement in the clause does not track with what you are asserting and that there are a number of people here that would tend to disagree with you. I also conceded that I am not A-one with grammar, but I did think that the evidence and the majority opinion tended to lean in the direction I was asserting - that the clause applies to only those who issue insurance, not those that purchase a policy (the individual non issuing entity).
Why would the clause elucidate what it does directly afterward if it weren’t intended specifically for that which is stated (issuers of a policy)?