Okay, I'm not trying to attack anyone specifically, because the desire to to utilize resources more effectively to improve the quality of life is always an admirable thing. However, Sure's statement still sums up the problem.
It's usually the same people who demand (insert name of prosperous nation here) should do more to help protect the citizens of some other sovereign nation who are victims of a ruthless dictatorship who will just as quickly march on the capital to protest the government's policy of trying to "police the world" with shouts of "no blood for oil" after ousting a dictator who used chemical warfare against his own people.
A purely hypothetical situation, you understand, but the point I hope is made.
Likewise, the tendency of people to protest the presence of police in their neighborhood (just there to "harass" people minding their own business) are the same people who shout the loudest when the police failed to prevent the theft of their kid's bicycle left unattended in the driveway overnight.
Oh, and back to the original topic?
Bottom line is, people are going to eventually die of something. I don't see the problem as a "rise" in incidences of cancer and heart disease. Back when the average life expectancy was much much lower, people died of smallpox and cholera and infections from injuries before they had lived long enough to develop cancer or heart disease.
So, if tomorrow a "cure" for these conditions were developed, don't you think we might see a "rise" in the incidence of death from something else? And people will scratch their heads and wonder why we're seeing more and more of it.
At least it will provide a filler for slow news days.