Public organizations rule the Swedish people politically. We, with the state or the municipalities as owners, can influence the work of the boards. We can demand transparency. We can decide how the organization should develop. An advantage of the public sector is that the state/municipalities can decide whether increased resources should go to personnel and/or operations. In private welfare companies, the owners themselves control whether or not to take out increased resources as profit. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance what the ownership of various organizations and companies looks like.
The classical distribution between private and public activities in Sweden in the 1980s serves as a good starting point for a further discussion about the appropriate demarcation between private and public. How do you create profits in healthcare? Through lower staffing or lower wages. How do you create profits within the school? Through lower staffing or lower wages. The railway and other infrastructure then? Most Swedes probably realize the need for government coordination and control there. Electricity production is also such an area: citizens cannot opt out of the service and needs are relatively easy to predict. In economics, this is called natural monopolies.
Housing is one another clear example. We are about to have a financial crisis that can greatly reduce welfare as the prices of condominiums and villas put people in debt and a housing bubble is in the making. Add to that the endless queues for tenancies and all the black contracts. Rents for new apartments are also very high.
The right tries to claim that the question of ownership is irrelevant. Besides the lack of popular influence. Except that the profit has to come from somewhere. The right is not particularly fond of economic democracy, quite simply.