> I think the best answer to these problems we face is competition.
I'm sorry, but that is the worst answer. Perverse incentives and moral hazard problems not withstanding, incarceration as a market, profit from human misery and suffering is absolutely morally repugnant.
> Remember when a small team built a better healthcare.gov?
You're comparing apples to naked mole rats. Running a website (that does exactly what you tell it) is a wee bit different than caring for violent, mentally disabled, borderline personalities, sexually, mentally abusive and abused, etc. individuals. (I'm including a lot of the guards in this description too)
> Businesses that get high marks automatically get more prisoners, ones that get low marks get none.
> That's a lot worse than gov run facilities, but gov facilities are probably not as good as properly regulated market.
Incarceration, and security in general, is the very definition of a market failure and one of the few things that a government needs to provide in the most liberal, laissez-faire economy
Think about how this will play out in reality, considering that prison guard unions and companies wield a large amount of political capital and no one really cares about the welfare of prisoners, if they're being mistreated/abused, etc. Companies can cook their books and no one will care.
We also live in the era where speech=money. Prison corporations spend large amounts of money lobbying. And they lobby for the sickest things possible: increases in sentences, increases in mandatory minimums, fighting against medical marijuana legalization just so they can imprison and profit off of "scary, criminal mastermind potheads"
Our economics is so backwards that we include spending on prisons in our GDP. Growth in the prison sector should not be added as growth in the overall economy
The market solution will not magically erase the culture of the prison economy or change its major players