Of course. But in this case, this debt is non-dischargeable, so the lender (the government!) is asserting its right under the law--a law that the student should have been aware of before rushing off to expensive, no-name liberal arts university.
This doesn't apply only to expensive universities. Or no-name universities. Or liberal arts universities. Or universities that people "rushed" to (that's a new one on me - how long does one have to delay their higher education before you deem it "not rushing"?). More to the point: "the law" clearly says that you don't have to pay your loans if you're disabled.
> This doesn't apply only to expensive universities.
In order for a university to saddle students with crushing debt, it must almost certainly be both a.) expensive b.) unhelpful for career prospects. This points to private liberal-arts colleges and for-profit diploma mills (though the latter are a lesser part of the problem; they are cheaper and enroll nearly 40% fewer students [1]).
> More to the point: "the law" clearly says that you don't have to pay your loans if you're disabled.
I'm not suggesting the law is being violated. What's offensive is that borrowers are being encouraged to default, _regardless of delinquency status_; the majority are current on their loans! The administration is actively seeking to maximize loss to the taxpayer.
To continue the theme, this doesn't only apply to "crushing" debt. As you mentioned, most borrowers are current on their payments. There's nothing to suggest that this forgiveness applies to more liberal art schools or more expensive schools (except ones that were cheap enough to not needed a loan in the first place).
Your second point is a good one, but since these people were deemed "fully disabled" by a doctor, it seems likely to me that these people would find it difficult to service the loans at some point.
Correct, my discomfort with government functions being farmed out to private corporations which add cost and no value clearly indicates that I am a red-faced Commie.
Silly hyperbole. They're simply being asked to pay for a product they consumed.
> the use of private companies charging usurious rates is simply wrong.
Sounds like your complaint is less with "usury" than with private enterprise.