It sounds like you're insolvent, and that your student debt is causing "undue hardship", which has been the standard for discharging student debt since 1987 (Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services).
It sounds like a free pass, and that makes me think this isn't any longer true. My search for a solution was always relegated to seeking out a way to change loan terms or consolidate so that I was paying less over a longer time.
At 40% of my income to student loans for a period of 20 years, I expect I won't be able to save any income or afford to have a child until I'm... eh, 45 or so. If there's actually a free pass, I'd take it.
The legal precedent you describe is different than what I've often heard and a simple Google seems to verify that you are correct.
It sounds like something that should get more attention than it does...
Given the power of the student loan industry, I suspect it would be hard to pull-off. But it still seems like something worth knowing.
Forget "the power of the student loan industry", how would you feel if you'd lent somebody $150,000 to get an education and they refused to pay it back on the grounds that "aw man, I don't wanna get a job..."
"... and requires a debtor to prove: (1) That the debtor cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a minimal standard of living for the debtor and dependents if forced to pay off student loans; (2) that additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period of the student loans; and (3) that the debtor has made good faith efforts to repay the loans."
Now, compare that with the poster's narrative and you'll find that the advice is flawed and worthy of downvoting, not upvoting. To be specific, he's been able to hold jobs that produced enough funds to invest into a entrepreneurial effort and he's made no effort to repay the loans.