I’ve commonly encountered arguments for regulating various markets that sound like, “well, if you allowed for a market, then the poor wouldn’t be able to afford it.” That’s certainly true. This thought is not about rationing devices and the poor in general, but rather it is asking a simple consistency question.
The most common market I see this defense used is in health care markets, especially when I ask students to write papers on whether “we” should legalize the sale of organs. There is no right answer of course. But this question arises: sure, the poor have a hard time purchasing kidneys on an open market (btw: I argue that it is even worse for them under the current regime, but that is not germane), but why do you wish to ban the use of markets in kidneys, but are perfectly OK with employing market forces to deliver food, shelter clothing and other important goods and services? It cannot be that having access to kidneys is ipso facto more important that eating.
It is not trite to remind folks that wrecking markets to alleviate poverty is unwise. If folks have low income, then the way to deal with that is outside the market mechanism, not within it. And yes, we can have the debate about which systems end up delivering the goods for the poor. I happen to believe the evidence is just a wee-bit tilted in favor of markets.