You're right, at least in the case of highly regulated markets and when the state creates artificial monopolies (e.g. electricity).

I'll correct my original comment then:

At least private companies that compete in a relatively free market are losing their own earned money when they're inefficient, not someone else's.

That claim assumes a free market with perfect information, which is more than even Adam Smith was willing to do.

It’s still not right.

Private companies are losing money on behalf of their owners or shareholders.

You could say that the owners/shareholders are losing it themselves, because they voluntarily invested in the company, as opposed to the state, which takes your money even if you don't want it to.

I think most VCs would have some thoughts on the idea that a start up they just pumped millions into has lost "the start-ups money" in some stupid experiment and not theirs.

a key difference is that the largest shareholders are proportionally affected by the waste, and have a proportionately large amount of power to do something about it.

Those are some of the most regulated industries in existence. Those companies are "private" in the sense that private individuals reap profits, but their funding is secured by proxy through force (legislation/forceful-taxation).

Move to a location with multiple electricity providers. They exist all over.

If you don’t like your employer healthcare, quit and find another or buy it on your own. There is choice there and you just don’t like it.

I think you’ve confused a discussion about how individuals make choices about their purchases for a complaint about the results of my personal choices?