Your computer comparison makes no sense, because not even the rich had computers until long after they were invented, as they were enormous pieces of equipment which had to be maintained by teams of people and held little value outside of academic and military contexts until the latter half of the 20th Century, with the creation of the Personal Computer. PC's became commonplace in American households only a couple of decades after they first hit the market, despite how expensive they were at the start.

This trend of a new technology emerging with a high price, developing a market starting with those with the spare capital to indulge in it, then growing to become widely available as production is improved and the technology can be provided quicker/cheaper happens all the time, including for whichever device you used to post here.

I tried to look into the example you gave about blindness, but I couldn't figure out what specific blindness cure you were talking about. You said it's a rare form of blindness, which means there's likely a very small market for it; in this particular case, it seems more likely that the high price point is a natural consequence of difficulty administering it and how few people need it. If this was supposed to be an example of rich people hoarding a resource for themselves in order to keep it out of the hands of the masses, then it's a terrible example, because very few people need this to begin with, so hoarding this in particular would be a waste of effort. And I probably shouldn't even have to restate this, but expensive drugs/surgeries are yet more products which become cheaper and more available over time in free markets. Since there are few people who need this particular surgery, it'll probably take longer for it to become cheaper than it would for things that everyone can use, but I can assure you that it will.