It may be a long while before college students and parents in America see any relief to make a college education more affordable, but at least Governor David Paterson of New York understands the problem and is working toward finding solutions. During the past two weeks, I've continued to look for media coverage of the issue -- and found some occasional coverage in pockets of the nation, but nothing to compare with coverage of other economic crises -- and yesterday, I found a great item in the New York Times.

The Times reported that on Monday, Governor Paterson promised to ask the legislature to "join some 40 other states to establish a low-cost student loan program." Former Governor Eliot Spitzer originated the process when he appointed a "high-level commission" in 2007 to look at the issue. But the Times added that "many critical questions remained about how it would be set up to ensure that it does not encourage unnecessary borrowing or undermine existing federal loan programs."

"Mr. Paterson’s office did not provide any details of the shape or scope of the program, but offered broad endorsement of the concept as students wrestle with increasing amounts of debt and fewer available lenders," it continued:

“As credit markets tighten and fewer financial institutions participate in student lending, students and their families are faced with the prospect of paying higher and higher interest rates,” the governor said in a written statement after meeting in Albany with members of the Commission on Higher Education.

“New York is one of the only states in the nation without a state-financed student loan program,” Mr. Paterson noted. “It is time for that to change, which is why my administration will introduce legislation to include this critical program in next year’s budget.”

While establishing the loan program would require budgetary action, it would not affect the state’s bottom line, making it one of the more politically palatable proposals in the commission report in a tough fiscal climate. “We will first seek to implement those recommendations which achieve high impact at little or no cost and at the same time pursue innovative ways to finance some of the recommendations which require state funding,” Mr. Paterson emphasized in a statement released on Monday.

The Times writer says that New York comes late to the list of states reviewing low-cost college programs, but the reason is that New York has historically "among the nation’s more generous providers of grants through its Tuition Assistance Program. Also, the State University of New York and the City University of New York are relatively cheap compared with other public colleges."

But tuition to even that state's colleges and universities have risen by "29 percent," "while the average income of state residents rose 16 percent. State officials say there are now $1.5 billion to $2 billion in loans extended to students attending more than 1,000 institutions across New York." The writer then quotes again Luke Swarthout, repeating statistics we've come to recognize from memory:

Luke Swarthout, a higher education advocate at the United States Public Interest Research Group, said that in 1993, 46 percent of students graduated with debt averaging $9,200, and that a decade later, two-thirds of students graduated with a debt of roughly $20,000.

But he said that even with good intentions, a state program could make the loans seem more enticing and “create a tendency to push more borrowing on the back of students.”

“A policy that expects undergraduates to borrow $100,000 to pay for college is ill-advised and not sustainable,” he said.

It's great that someone with the stature of Governor Paterson is raising the issue, because it offers hope that candidates running for office at the state and federal level might begin to talk about this issue too.

And it's high time they do, because insurmountable debt not only weighs down the nation's economic growth, it also affects the health of those deepest in debt. That's no joke; an Associated Press-AOL Health poll says so. I don't have a link, but I'm quoting a report published June 9, 2008, in the Columbia Daily Tribune of Missouri under the headline, "Debt bad for health, poll says - Stress may lead to physical ailments."

The stress from deepening debt is becoming a major pain in the neck - and the back and the head and the stomach - for millions of Americans. When people are dealing with mountains of debt , they're much more likely to report health problems, too, according to an Associated Press-AOL Health poll. And not just little stuff; this means ulcers, severe depression, even heart attacks.

Take Edward Driscoll, 38, of Braintree, Mass. He blames debt - $10,000 worth - for contributing to his ulcers and his wife Kimberly's panic attacks. "Just worrying, worrying, worrying, you know," he says.

Although most people appear to be managing their debts all right, perhaps 10 million to 16 million are "suffering terribly due to their debts , and their health is likely to be negatively impacted," says Paul Lavrakas, a research psychologist and AP consultant who analyzed the results of the survey. Those are people who reported high levels of debt stress and suffered from at least three stress-related illnesses, he says.

That finding is supported by medical research that has linked chronic stress to a wide range of ailments. And the current tough economic times and rising costs of living seem to be leading to increasing debt stress, 14 percent higher this year than in 2004, according to an index tied to the AP-AOL survey.

The results attributed to debt stress include ulcers or digestive tract problems, migraines or other headaches, severe anxiety, severe depression, heart attacks and muscle tension, not to mention trouble concentrating and sleeping. I can understand why.

When their construction business went under four years ago, Pamela Crouch, 61, and her husband, who had retired from General Motors, found themselves struggling under IOUs totaling $30,000.

"We just kind of felt desperate. We just really didn't have enough to live on, to pay what we had to pay," recalls Crouch, of Eaton, Ind. She remembers having trouble sleeping and concentrating. "We ended up paying a lot of our bills just on the credit card," says Crouch, a medical assistant in a nursing home. "We were stressed and depressed. ... It was really rough."

Their son, a manager of a construction supply company, recently helped them out with their debt problems. "Things are doing much better," she says. "It made a world of difference in how we feel."

The report suggests that physical ailments attributed to debt stress are "typical of chronic stress" and discusses the body's natural "fight or flight response" that pumps adrenaline and cortisol into the bloodstream, which is just what you want in some crises but which can harm your body if you never get out of that situation.

But one of the most interesting parts of the poll on debt stress was described in the Tribune's last paragraph, and I'll quote it:

Indeed, the survey found that upwardly mobile, middle-class families were among those who had the most debt stress. Others were women, couples with small children, low-income working families, Democrats and those who graduated high school but haven't taken college courses. Those least likely to be stressed from debt include men, retirees, empty nesters, college graduates and Republicans.

So I ask, into which categories do most bloggers put themselves?