So why not fix the problem at the demand side and not the supply side. If people can't afford essential-to-life services, isn't that the problem?
While I'm on the subject, centrally planning and allocating the services doesn't really solve the problem of whether it's worth the cost to have one ambulance to serve a town of five people who live in the middle of nowhere. Someone still has to make the decision. We can contrast the ways to make the decision.
In one proposal, the consumers of the services pay free market suppliers for emergency services. Various suppliers compete on features and price for servicing Buford, Wyoming (population 1). It turns out the resident of Buford, Wyoming needs to pay six figures per year to pay for his services. Either he's a Walton and it's not a big deal or he's a normal person and has to move somewhere that normal people can afford to live. Or maybe he signs a waiver stating he understands his home is outside the normal emergency services areas.
In another proposal, everyone gets emergency services no matter what. If a town can't afford it, they lobby up (county, state, nation) to a bureaucracy to get the subsidies they need. Eventually the money gets allocated as a line item in a pork barrel rider on the Save Kids with Cancer Act. From then on it's political suicide and a huge waste of political capital to cut the Buford, Wyoming Fire Department from the budget since, relatively speaking, there's not much to gain by being sensible at this level of detail. The guy in Buford, Wyoming gets a permanent six-figure-a-year subsidy for having absolutely no neighbors.
Hold on, you say, in proposal B you can have qualified bureaucrats (sorry, experts) picking which towns get services and which don't. In this case, we get to blame 'heartless republicans/democrats/whatever' instead of 'creative destruction'. People still have to decide some towns aren't worth it. But it's no longer people paying for what they use. It's someone you need to hire lobbyists to talk to.