Health care research and development would ideally be focused on adding quality (i.e. productive) years of life and not quantity of years for the sake of economic growth. At some point, it's bad for the economy, if life expectancies are extended due to curing cancer, but that extension is adding additional retirement years / not working years.
The added years of life attributable to curing cancer are not likely to add a proportionate amount of new economic productivity. Those who would be cured from cancer are mostly past their working years or nearing the end.
The stock market generally wants consumers (like retirees) to spend as much money as possible in the shortest period of time. Retirees in a cancer free world should spend their nest egg slower to account for a longer life expectancy. The stock market would perform best, if retirees spend their nest egg quickly and then die. It's not healthy for the economy to have retirees hoarding cash because they expect to live past 100.
With that said, I would trade my material wealth to have a few more years with those close to me who've died from cancer. On a personal level
I would rather live to 80 and be mobile for all of those years than live to 90 and be home confined for 15 of those 90 years. My anecdotal experience is the US health care system disproportionately focuses on quantity vs quality of life.
