In a less extreme light, I'm inclined to sort of agree with LurkerLito. While I don't believe that a pharmaceutical company would go out of its way to hide a cure, it's broadly true that pharmas aren't investing the money needed for new antibiotic development -- some of the closest things we have to actual cures -- because they wouldn't make their money back. Most people only take antibiotics for a few weeks, and the old antibiotics are still widely used until a patient is found to be harboring resistant bacteria. There really is a lot more money to be made chasing lifestyle conditions like diabetes, high cholesterol annd erectile disfunction. It's more a matter of where they're investing their R&D money than of some Snidely Whiplash CEO raising a toast to human misery.
And I don't know about the LASIK argument. My vision insurance has a $100/year allowance, which just about covers a pair of glasses or contacts (which I don't even bother to replace every year). Google says LASIK costs about $2,100 per eye, on average. So that's 42+ years of glasses and/or contacts all up front, which seems like a good deal for the provider.
That said, lots of things don't have cures because it's straight up hard and the technology just isn't there yet. If we had the genetic manipulation techniques to cure cancer instead of subjecting people to debilitating chemotherapy and radiation treatment, then we'd probably have a real-life Jurassic Park already, too, or at least eliminated a gamut of inherited conditions. We don't have nanomachines to zap cancer cells, either. Without that kind of technological breakthrough, the advanced stages of cancer probably just aren't something that can be defeated by drugs or anything else we have available.