Yes, medical privilage is surely already the case all across this world. That is totally obvious.
Which is why I am skeptical about any social models which boost individuality over what I call "unhealthy line". Because both too much market and continuation of technologial development when combined will almost surely lead into creation of some kind of super class ... and that almost surely means a major mess at some point. Will the super class actually be made out of rich people or they will be overthrown by mad scientists is up for a debate. However the fact is that so far there was no mechanism that permanently managed to stop technological development and therefore privacy will have to be reduced in order to make sure that someone doesn't do secret dangerous experiments. However that is probably doomed initiative since not every country on this planet is democratic and that surely wouldn't change anytime soon.
This is possibly the greatest challange of 21th century. How to protect the people from all the profund changes that technological potential brings. Digitalization, GMO food, internet addictions, medical manipulations, climate change ... etc. The current economic models are unlikely to survive all of this and they are unlikely to be the part of the solution either ... but what will be the replacement is still very unclear.
I read and reviewed a book for Amazon lately on this, the bioinformation side of it anyway, which had lots of things to say about the creation of a digital "commons" which may prevent, I would say only temporarily hinder to be honest, the possible monopolisation and repression of date collected on bioinformation, although even that does not necessarily prevent the products of that information, pharma, technologies, therapies, being monopolised but if the information, the starting point, is held in common theoretically there is a chance of competition between R&D firms or enterprise, even considering things like barriers to entry in the marketplace, economies of scale etc.
The importance of stratification and status is never going away, I have gotten to the point were I think its something to be conscious of and attempt to manage within a permissible limit rather than believe its possible to outright abolish altogether.
Rawls version of it, that the society is better that has inequality but the least well off it happier and more prosperous than the least well off in an egalitarian equivalent or alternative is a good one, though I do think in some ways it is a "cold war" ideology, when the USA had Russia around as a good example of an impoverished egalitarian society which had "equal shares of misery", sort of, I think there were always "developmental" issues with Russia, materially, culturally etc.
The emergence of a sort of "uber mensch" is not going to be good for humanity, I think already the sorts of toxicity are clear, like the innovations in automation and robots is not leading to a chorus of "yay, we'll all be free to do stuff" but more of a "what are we going to do with all these people?", as though that's the sort of thinking anyone should engage in and it contains all sorts of blind spots, exceptionalism, othering etc. Like no one thinks of themselves as the "surplus" or "problem" when they think that way.
However, if that's the average fool's response to technological displacement, what's the view of some sort of genetically advanced or engineered superman going to be?
There was a plot line in the classic star trek about this, it was what introduced the character of Khan, which was later in the movie, I think there was a book too about the creation of "immortals" by uber rich special interests, it could have been Wes Craven was associated with it or meant to adapt it or something, once upon a time.
.
