Public organizations govern the Swedish people politically. We, with the state or municipalities as owners, can influence the work of the boards. We can demand transparency. We can decide how the organization will 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 they should withdraw increased resources as profit or not. Therefore, it is of utmost importance how the ownership of different organizations and companies looks like.
The classic division between private and public activities in Sweden in the 1980s serves as a good starting point for a further discussion on 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 in schools? Through lower staffing or lower wages. What about the railways and other infrastructure? Most Swedes probably realize the need for state 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. This is called natural monopolies in economics.
Housing is another clear example. We are about to have a financial crisis that could significantly 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 rental apartments and all the black contracts. The rents for new apartments are also very high.
The right is trying to claim that the ownership issue is irrelevant. Except for the lack of popular influence. Except that the profit has to come from somewhere. The right is simply not particularly fond of economic democracy.