Socialists use the term 'monopoly' to describe any situation of high profits or simply being the largest company in a given field, like Wal-Mart. Actually, neither of these factors has anything to do with being a real monopoly. A monopoly exists when there is some physical or legal reason why it is not possible to compete with the monopolist.
Pharma companies have created a monopoly by getting laws passed preventing consumers from shopping around in other countries for good deals on drugs. You can buy apples from Chile in any supermarket, but you can't legally send away to Switzerland to get your prescriptions filled on their open market. THAT is what makes pharma a monopoly.
You and I define monopoly very differently. As a matter of fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many others who define the term in the same manner you do. Good deals are available in other countries simply because the drug companies are forced to sell their products in those countries under strict price controls. This creates a false economy - not an open market as you suggest - and is in no way akin to buying apples from Chile in any supermarket.
In almost all of the agreements that these parasitic countries sign with the drug companies, they agree not to resell the drugs to other countries. This portion of the agreement is never enforced so it is very understandable why the drug makers are upset and lobby congress for assistance. The bad guys here are the nanny states who get to enjoy the many benefits the pharmaceutical companies provide while demanding that others pay for it. How you can misconstrue this situation into somehow creating a monopoly for the drug makers is a mystery.