also, the possibility of renting the house out down the road as a second rental investment seems very promising considering the fact that we already have proof today that rent in that market can support our mortgage payment - and that's today so should be more down the road. (that's a much longer term possibility but it's still part of the consideration.)
I'm worried that you're looking at the rent vs buy question in a dangerously simplistic way that may lead to a lot of bad real estate decisions.
For instance, in the case of an investment property, if the rent barely pays the mortgage, how will you pay taxes, insurance, ongoing maintenance, allowances for when the property is vacant or the tenant doesn't pay, potential legal expenses etc.? In fact, an investment property where the rent barely covers the mortgage is likely to be a huge money loser. Most investors invoke "the 50% rule" ("Over time, 50% of your real estate investment’s income will be spent on expenses, not including the mortgage") to gauge whether a property is worth investing in.
Comparing the house you're looking to buy to your current rental is a total apples to oranges. Is the other house twice as big? In a safer neighborhood with better schools? If comparable properties rent for about the mortgage payment, you should be renting rather than buying in that area, unless you're making a play on dramatic price appreciation. The notion that paying rent is "throwing money away" is absolutely the wrong way to think about things. Why is paying mortgage interest, taxes, and $6,000 for that new roof not throwing money away too?
One thing is almost for sure, even after the additional commuting expenses, continuing to rent will be cheaper for you than purchasing the other home at mortgage payment = rent +$200.
From the patchwork numbers you've offered up, your best option is to rent near your place of work, getting the best of both worlds (cheapest housing and low commute cost), even if it means sitting down with your husband and a calculator to prove it.