This type of recommendation is based on "results based" medicine. It's not too hard to actually look at risk versus benefit numbers to make recommendations. The problem is that everyone has an anecdote of someone who benefited from method A and no one can see who was harmed from A but would have been fine under method B. We have an inherent belief that "more is more" when sometimes "more is less". Here's a link to an excellent story
about how our health care system works from the doctor/patient side. (There is a part two covering other aspects.) The section that I found fasinating was "Act Two" where a doctor describes having to persuade a patient's father that demanding a cat scan would actually be BAD for his daughter even though it would 1) make more money for the hospital 2) make more money for the doctor and 3) reduce the liability of both.
There is a cost to excessive testing besides money. The patient has to give up significant amounts of time and productivity. The care providers have to do the same. Doctors have to spend more time analyzing the results meaning that they tend to spend less time on each test and increase their chances of missing something. They also have less time to spend with patients and every doctor will tell you that most of the time, patients can tell you what the problem is faster than a test.
This is not a problem just for breast cancer screening, it is endemic to the industry. I think it would be fair to ask to see the numbers. What are the downsides to mammography (or prostate screening, or pre-natal testing)? What are the benefits? When do the lines cross? I think those are better questions than posing conspiracy theories. We must accept that more is not always better and that math does essentially work, even if lives are on the line.