Pet Medicine is Less Regulated than Human Medicine

     In reference to the Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) acquisition of Novartis Animal Health, I have come across an important fact that I did not have when I wrote the last post.  The Novartis business segment purchased only contains roughly 50% that is food related.  The other half falls under the category: "companion animal"--such as medicine for pets.

This knowledge in no way detracts from the point I was trying to make--which was that a shift in capital away from human health, and into alternative, animal health related markets is a positive move.

Rituparna Basu, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, explains in her article, Why My Dog's Health Insurance is Cheaper than My Own:

"...veterinary medicine in general is freer, which contributes to why the same treatment costs far less when performed on a pet than on a person..."

Eli Lilly should realize more profit from doing business, in both the food and pet markets, than those companies that are still stuck trying to tangle with the FDA and Obamacare.  However, considering the large magnitude of Lilly's current R&D, no one invested in the company should give up the fight for Capitalist Medicine--so that the business can have the hope of prospering in all markets.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind