@Samuel Coronado I don't disagree.

Disclosure of the chain of title must be able to be shown for any policy issued, as to the date and time of settlements and settlement documents retained on file for examination.

Most of it is rooted in disagreeing with the ideas of the commentary as they seem fairly unsound and at times exaggerated or even simply not true.

- I'm surprised but I find myself disagreeing with the obligation to sell your house to pay off unsecured debt.Whoever loaned you 'unsecured' - presumably demanded a higher return for the risk that you might get sick, and you were unwilling to put up your house as collateral, so they are stuck waiting until you can pay.If you are willing to sell your house to repay unsecured debt, then get debt secured by your house, it will be cheaper.

From my perspective, in a market where the institutional players are active (see https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/311/topics/86191-the-modus-operandi-of-the-mass-buyer---a-case-study), I disagree with most of the above posts.

Ultimately the nature of a great society is having the capacity to share opinions whether we agree or disagree with them. 

Lets examine"Ideology, like religion is dismissive of all who disagree.

I do really can open my mouth and say something I agree or disagree.

I'd like to be able to appeal to as broad a demographic as possible, so maybe the answer is write a series of e-books.As far as providing a free service- I tend to disagree with that, subscribing rather to the "Predictably Irrational" theory, that when a consumer is given something for free, they no longer consider it's actual value, which would of course be contrary to my objective.

I would disagree with Jon's assesment.