So the government then picks "successful drugs" and hands out massive amounts of money to those companies based on the definition of success as determined by politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists.

Sounds like a nonstarter to me.

I'm not advocating for the proposal necessarily, but it's worth pointing out that a solution could be all kinds of bad yet still better than the mess we have today.

I don't agree with that.

We could really screw up an industry that has been phenomenally successful at producing drugs that everyone agrees have provided incomparable and vital life-saving solutions.

We should be extremely sober and careful about messing with it and mindful of our ability to destroy the benefits that we already get today. I've seen too many comments in this thread along the lines of "They make too much money" or "The Government should take over the industry" or "Something radical needs to be done right away because 'lives are at stake'".

Statements and positions like those set off my warning alarms.

How about, "they spend more money on ads and sending hot 23-yos to doctors' offices with free schwag than they'll ever spend on R&D".

Again, I'm inclined to agree with your criticism of that particular proposal. And I'll agree that there are things that are worse than the current state. But the current state is pretty bad, and imperfection is not a disqualifier for "better".

That's funny, because I was thinking it should be the opposite: R&D by government scientists so that discoveries can be made available to the public as cheaply as possible.