If you can cheaply test everyone, and narrow down the number of people requiring more expensive testing, you can potentially, at scale, detect and limit negative health outcomes. There is both an economic and societal benefit to testing and treating people.
If the more expensive testing is at all invasive (for example, biopsies) or still has false positives (benign tumors, say) then it could end up being a net negative. This effect has bedeviled screening for other cancers, like breast and prostate cancers.
Sure but the current state of affairs is clearly not optimal from an individual patients perspective. You notice this as you hit 40, 50 years old.
I know multiple "woops we don't screen often/early/proactively for that" cancer deaths in mid 30s to mid 50s.
I even know a few "wow good thing you had that CT scan for xyz, we just found some unrelated Stage 2 cancer elsewhere" people.
I know ZERO "oops false positive, we killed you with an invasive procedure" deaths. I know they happen, just clear to me its less often than the above.
Maybe you are young and/or lucky, but you'll find over time an increasingly disconcerting amount of friends&family dying preventable/otherwise treatable (with screening) deaths from cancer.
Note I said "from an individuals perspective". It is possible for the system to be optimized from a cost/benefit system level perspective without it providing the best possible outcome for each individual. Given that its run by the government & for-profit insurance, this is probably the case.
I think it is a bit hard to argue that the US medical system in general is perfect, and beyond reproach. Let alone the gaps in our pro-active cancer screening. Places like South Korea and China do far more, with less.
