My point was not that it was cheaper in any way. I am well aware that the costs are slightly less or the same, but that's kinda my point... The government subsidizes education and raises money through taxation, reducing the requirement of big loans or wealth AT THE START OF YOUR CAREER. Even if you fail, your life isn't destined for serfdom, beholden for 30 years to whomever gave you a loan.

Also, as you point out, everyone pays en there is no choice in the matter. This is a good thing. This is also what's terribly wrong about America... the MEconomy.

People only want to pay for things they benefit from directly and refuse to contribute to the collective, for the benefit of the greater good. Education, healthcare, etc etc

I think you make a decent point about the self-centered nature of the American economy and mindset – to some extent it does hinder the upper-bound of what we can achieve, as a society... however, the way it benefits us (or is supposed to benefit us) is through the action of a market economy – if we're all forced to pay for college, even if we don't attend, there's little incentive for colleges to produce a better value for the money paid... unfortunately, IMHO, with loans as they are, we effectively break the market economy by decoupling the payment from the experience so significantly.

Further, we have plenty of experience here with government run systems that are so highly inefficient that there's a (very warranted) mistrust in the ability of any government run system to deliver a superior product for a lower cost.

We temper some of those two extremes by allowing for nonprofit corporations – and that is where I believe healthcare should primarily be handled, rather than for-profit industries like we see now... but of course, educational institutions are nonprofits, in most cases and they are acting more and more like for-profit ones, so it's clearly not sufficient on its own.