The government absolutely has to be on the supply side of that exchange. If the state gives person C $X for diabetes meds, and then does not also produce enoug

The government absolutely has to be on the supply side of that exchange. If the state gives person C $X for diabetes meds, and then does not also produce enough diabetes meds for one person exactly like person C and place it on the market for $X, then the person or firm that does produce the meds that person C uses can capture all the $X checks from all the diabetics by supplying one unit less than is required for all of them and making them play a game of musical chairs where the highest bidders sit first, and the one left without a seat at the end dies. It works for every need--housing, meds, transport, etc. If the government does not add to the market supply, the incumbent suppliers can capture all the benefit. So if the people need more housing, the government can't just give people money and tell them to rent. They can't just build houses and assign people to them. They have to build houses that are competitive on the open market, and also give people enough money to buy or rent them. Even if some rich landlord snaps up all the state-built houses to rent out, the potential of capturing the benefit by raising rents is still mitigated by the increase in housing supply. Helicopter-dropped piles of cash go hand in hand with ensuring a supply exists to spend that cash on.