I have no issue.So what issue do you have with my post... other than your opinion of expensive?Rumballs, it's actually not the procedure which is expensive. It's the follow up.A mammogram costs between 100- 200 bucks. Not a lot really.
But women under 50 have dense breast tissue which makes it much more difficult to read. Because of that, they are at a significantly increased risk of false positives and false negatives (in a demographic where breast cancer itself is uncommon, and whn it occurs, they are at a higher risk of mortality, regardless of screening, because of the aggressive nature of it). When you have a false positive, that's when it gets expensive--follow up ultrasound or mammogram, specialists, and biopsies--for benign growths.
This is why the recommendation was made inthe US, and why throughout most of the world, women under 50 aren't screened UNLESS they have clear risk factors--there is simply more to lose in the way of unnecessary procedures, than there is likely to gain.
As to your second post, the stakeholders in government are the taxpayers, not shareholders. Since the people paying the taxes are the same ones getting the care, they tend to err on the side of good patient outcomes and emphasis on good care and access over the money. (Like Social Security--people know that they benefit from that program, so while it was controversial when it was introduced, the mindset has changed that people are protective of it, at all costs.)