I would argue that a single payer system with a statutory and fiduciary obligation to negotiate fair costs on behalf of the taxpayers that rely on the service would, in contrast, lower the cost of medical care in comparison to the present system wherein insurance companies and other segments of the health care industry play off both providers and patients. In contrast with eliminating insurance entirely, a single payer system allows for the pooled leverage of buying power to ensure that products and services are not only affordable, but that access to services isn't limited by individuals' direct ability to pay. The quality of care would not be negatively impacted to the extent that the profit motive of health care providers would not be negatively altered (as opposed to the profit motive of the insurance), and it would improve the quality of service and care to the extent that patients are freer to shop around from provider to provider due to the elimination of insurance networks.
Tuition reform is necessary across the board, but that process also desperately requires a national discussion on what the intent of post-secondary education actually is, how or when the value of a degree should or shouldn't be tied to career tracks, and why a post secondary education is now viewed as nearly mandatory by society despite the escalating costs.