This study appears to have used "human embryonic stem cells (hESCs)" [1]. We haven't tested this with iPSCs [2].
Even if it only works with hESCs, if the part of the population that thinks blastocysts are people wants to live a third or a quarter as long as the part that doesn't, I don't see a problem with that. We're basically going in that direction with vaccination anyway.
Thank you for the details about this article but that's not quite what I meant.
I meant where do you get enough stem cells to make the procedure widely available to the developed world? Stem cells are kinda scarce, as far as I know, so it may gate such a thing.
Embryonic stem cells are rare in America because of religious types. They're not particularly difficult to manufacture or extract--the limit is really human eggs, and we can make those in the lab [1]. (Human sperm are not, for many reasons, difficult to secure.)
I'd actually guess hESCs would be the cheapest route. If we insist on iPSCs, then this turns into a personalised medicine treatment. But in that, it's no different from e.g. oncology.
If by uber-wealthy you mean most people in rich countries, sure. Otherwise, I don't see why this would progress in a way all other medicine has not.