>

The opportunity cost for college is at its lowest point right out of high school. That is the main reason to go then.
Isn't the real issue here the limited understanding of the impact of large financial decisions at 18 rather than anything about college? If a kid comes from a wealthy family that will pay their way, why shouldn't they consider college? If our society subsidized college making it relatively "free," why shouldn't they consider college? The basic idea is that there are other considerations and solutions rather than focusing on people's age. >

There's nothing inherently wrong with continuing higher education after high school. It's arguably the best time to do so before you have other financial or social responsibilities that would prevent you from being able to dedicate yourself to it.
The problem is that everything in our society costs too much. In the past, you could pay your own way through college on a part time job. Hell, you could even buy a car and a house and raise a family on an entry-level wage. The fact that college requires crippling debt is a symptom of an economic failure in society toward the working class, not an inherent issue with a college education. Even factoring that into account, it's still usually better to go to college. >

It should be noted that being able to buy a car and a house and raise a family on an entry-level age or pay through college on a part-time job without any outside support is something specific to US in the first half-to mid 20th century. Other countries did not have it that good, even western ones. And 20th century US was a product of long-standing policies that emphasized economic growth even at the cost of immediate comfort - something that hasn't been the case for at least the last half century.
Also the countries that provide the essentials to people as part of welfare typically have some kind of cost-saving solution in place to provide people some degree of a service without bankrupting the country. E.g. if welfare provides you support to get your own place to live, it will be much, MUCH smaller than what americans have grown used to consider adequate. Even in the countries with the best welfare medicine, it will rely in using no-frills labs and consultations for vast majority of things, and only escalates to higher level if it's not sufficient. Whereas in US full-blown hospital visits are a large part of first-line medical treatment. Problem is - among the people in US who put the most energy into campaigning to improve the situation the bulk of the effort goes into "give us more money", even though the current universities and hospitals are more than capable of finding ways to use more money without necessarily improving the situation. And on the other side US has a major shortage of people who point out specific problems, provide specific detailed methods they can be improved, ideally by using stuff that was already shown to work elsewhere and who would fix the general inefficiency of US systems rather than just throwing more money at the problem - basically people who are professionals and not just activists. >


Even in the countries with the best welfare medicine, it will rely in using no-frills labs and consultations for vast majority of things, and only escalates to higher level if it's not sufficient. Whereas in US full-blown hospital visits are a large part of first-line medical treatment.

This is a frankly incredible way to spin universal healthcare as an example of welfare being "not as good" in other countries as in mid-century America.
It's true that it saves money in the long term for the government to cover preventative care, but I don't see how this contradicts the idea that everything costs too much, or that we should expand social services. If anything, it seems like an argument precisely in favor of expanding social services by treating it as an investment.
I don't know if other countries ever had an economy where a part-time job would pay for college. But does it matter, if there are countries today where you can get full college tuition paid for by the state? The net result is the same: You can send people through college without putting them into massive debt. >

Note that I didn't compare anything to healthcare in mid-20th century America. My point was that US healthcare lacks affordable providers that make some necessary sacrifices for cost-cutting but still check all the essential boxes - plus multiple other issues that result in healthcare costs to consumers multiple times higher than in many European countries before their welfare even kicks in. If you go for state provided health care at all, fixing those things is  basic common sense. For that matter addressing costs, e.g. bringing them to general western level (not counting welfare contributions) will make US healthcare significantly more accessible even before you follow up with any welfare. On the other hand it's throwing more money without fixing actual problems a la Obamacare that is a waste of time. US uses around 18% of its GDP on healthcare, which is a ridiculous amount (second highest is 12%). Considering how many Americans go without proper healthcare, getting good level to everyone at current prices would require over half of GDP, which is not realistic. >


...good healthcare at current US prices...

A single payer would pretty much automatically do a lot to reduce prices. Even Medicare seems to do a decent job here. And, honestly, painting this in terms of what it'd cost the state comes off as a propaganda tactic these days.
But I'm curious why you think Obamacare was a waste of time. It didn't solve every problem, but it did solve plenty of actual problems. Preexisting conditions is the obvious one. >

I was talking about GDP, not government budget. I.e. right now US spends on healthcare 18% of combined earnings of everyone and everything in the whole country - individuals, business, the state, etc. And expanding the scope to cover all the people currently going without proper healthcare would drastically increase that percentage regardless of who would handle it - the government or business. Economy of scale only goes so far.
Personally I think that this whole subject got too mired in the usual left-vs-right debates that people kind of miss the point that neither side pays much attention to addressing the underlying issues (a few voices on both sides do, but they are the minority).
To clarify, I believe that Obamacare was effectively stillborn when it comes to its main premise, that is improving the overall quality of healthcare by subsidizing it to people with lower income. US doesn't have much room to increase the spending to the point where it would make an impact - primarily due to grossly inflated costs. That said. it was a huge bill with a lot of initiatives in it, and I'm not trying to argue that each and every one of them was completely pointless. >

This is very US centric, no? 
In other parts of the world the cost of education isn't nearly as prohibitive and people get full citizen privileges like voting and drinking as soon as they hit 18 as well.
It seems to me the core of your issue lies not in superior education itself, but in the hostile conditions that impede it in the US. >

Yes, very anti-US. I envy you guys >



College is optional. Nobody has to go at all. Anyone who chooses to go, should be smart enough to research their choices and the implications of student loans. 


Gap years are so common that most colleges allow incoming students to defer enrollment their first year. 


A $300k price tag in the US is for private colleges. State college  average cost for 4 years is $125k. In some states like NY if your family makes under $125/year tuition is free. Community college is far less at $5k a year. And all of this depends on your income level and how much financial aid you receive. This is all information that is publicly available. If you choose to attend a private college you can’t afford, see my first point. >

Absolutely valid point. >

If they change your view a little give them a delta >

They're valid points, but they don't address OP's view. It is unfair to pressure 18 year olds.