One of the primary reasons people bail out companies are the knock-on effects. People losing jobs, etc. If society itself is robust enough to cover for people in those situations, we could let companies fail far more.
There's a sentiment on here often that, even if a company has been essentially blown up by technology or market change, they should have transformed themselves to adapt. But that implies they probably needed to rototill their workforce in any case. At some point, you're probably better off just declaring bankruptcy and starting fresh or letting someone else do so.
True, but for some companies there are also national security concerns. If we lose the domestic supply chain for certain items then that limits our freedom of action and leaves us vulnerable to supply disruptions.
If you depend on a single company to supply certain items, you have a big problem already. Pouring money in that company will mostly help the executive bonuses, not the national security.