it sounds handicapped to say, but let's really think about this; if corporations are as really into money as everyone says they are, then realistically they have more of an obligation to keep you alive than the government does
That's not true based on the economics of how monopolies work. Monopolies, by definition, create
deadweight loss in the market by charging their products at a profit-maximizing price rather than the market equilibrium price. What this means, in lay-speak, is that there should normally be an exchange of money in the market (for instance, people buying drugs and staying alive) but it isn't happening because the monopolist isn't taking prices from the market. That means that less medicine is being sold (Qc - Qm on the graph), meaning people are dying.
Now, if the monopoly's profit-maximizing price is pretty close to the equilibrium, then the effect might not be terrible. There is no widespread shortage of epi-pens, for instance, because the price probably wouldn't be too much lower in a more efficient market. But the same can't be said for other drugs.
what needs to be done is to encourage competition within the industry, and the only way to do that is to remove restrictions and subsidies that keep starfish monopolizing companies alive
The only way to do this would be to decay their patents so that other firms can start producing the same drugs. That's a problem because if you do that, you're removing 90% of the economic incentive for people to create drugs, which will kill more people in the long-term.
There is no way to starve out monopolies by removing restrictions and subsidies. Monopolies are operating with more profit than is possible for them to make in a competitive market. You cannot convince corporations to become less monopolistic because it will cost them money.
Poll