That's like saying that software development is cheap because all you need is a $1000 machine. Sure, the barrier to entry is low, but achieving anything significant still costs a lot (whether in recruitment costs and salaries, or in sweat equity and personal time investment.)

That doesn't mean that:

1) it's not a luxury 2) that medical providers will pass the savings on to consumers

If you're a remotely rational government, why would you not subsidize it? The dividends you could reap from a population with greater health, intelligence, self-control, low time-preference, etc., would be ridiculous.

Of course maybe people will want to use it for more zero-sum things like height or looks, so maybe you ban or don't subsidize that, but inequality in more positive-sum traits is unlikely.

Do you think the same as vaccinations? Those cost $x too: http://children.costhelper.com/baby-immunization.html

What if someone doesn't have the money for them?

I'm certain that at least in Europe, it will be free and regulated, if allowed.

Ah, I see - I'm speaking as someone from the US. I don't have the experience to speak to EU healthcare.