> Are you claiming MAID does not save money and decrease usage by ending expensive care earlier than it would otherwise be ended?

No, I'm saying it reduces suffering and it also saves money and resources. It's the first part that is the most important and where the political pressure came from. You seem to missing that point. That it reduces suffering and that people want suffering reduced!

End of life care is expensive regardless of whether it is publicly or privately funded. And in either cases there will be people in situations where extending life via medical means just isn't worth it because the extra time would just be an extension of torment. If private insurance was an option, then it would be the private company that would incentivized to get people to end life early. The private/public part is irrelevant to the discussion if you only look at it through a financial lens. Both ways would have the same incentive monetarily.

> You trust the government to do the right

In this case the right thing is to allow people to choose for themselves, and that it what's happening. I don't even know what you want instead, do you want MAID eliminated?