> As much as I hate socialism, the only solution appears to be Single Payer.
The problem is, "How do we establish a market that provides medication to patients who may not be able to afford it while still generating enough profit to allow research and development of new drugs 10 years from now?"
Establishing a monopsony doesn't actually solve this problem. It changes the flow of money slightly[0], but it doesn't actually solve the fundamental problem: in the aggregate, R&D costs more than patients are able to provide.
Since we're talking about a national scale, we can't use the argument that adding external money to the system - taxpayer funds - would solve the problem, because the two sets - "Patients" and "Taxpayers" - are the same[1]. The funds are still coming from patients, whether they come in the form of insurance premiums or tax withholdings[2].
[0] but a lot less than most people think! Health insurance in the US already is much more like a monopsony than most people realize.
[1] Technically not exactly the same, but close enough that, economically, they can be treated as one.
[2] One might argue that taxes can vary with income. Aside from the fact that insurance premiums already can (and do) explicitly vary with income, this actually already is the current state: patients on private insurance (and especially the ones with very expensive, luxury health plans) already subsidize patients on public insurance. Changing the system so that we collect these subsidies through tax funds doesn't change the problem (though ironically, it does increase the risk that those funds will be diverted to other government budgets).