Background On December 4th, 2024, UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was fatally shot outside a Manhattan hotel in what police have described as a "targeted attack." Thompson's wife has reported that he had been receiving threats prior to his death, though the specific nature of these threats remains unclear.
https://ground.news/article/2ac8a2a9-8b3a-4bf1-9b55-fe2f5bb80dc7
Resolution Criteria This market will resolve based on official statements from law enforcement, court documents, or credible reports that definitively establish the motives behind Brian Thompson's assassination. Multiple answers may resolve YES if multiple motives are established.
"Radical Leftism" resolves YES if evidence shows the attack was primarily motivated by far-left ideology or anti-capitalist extremism
"Personal tragedy" resolves YES if the assassin or their family member experienced documented harm from UnitedHealthcare policies/decisions that motivated the attack
"Business" resolves YES if the motive was related to business dealings, corporate rivalry, or financial disputes, either with respect to Brian Thompson personally or UnitedHealthcare
"Mental health crisis" resolves YES if official reports indicate the attacker's primary motivation was related to mental illness or psychosis
"Targeted hit/contract killing" resolves YES if evidence shows the assassination was a paid hit or professionally orchestrated murder
"Personal conflict" resolves YES if the motive stemmed from personal grievances between the assassin and Thompson
If no compelling evidence exists that a motive was a substantial factor in the assassin's actions by December 31st 2025, or by the conclusion of a trial if such occurs and is likely to present novel information as to motives, remaining outstanding motives will be resolved NO.
Please feel empowered to add your own options.
Possible clarification from creator (AI generated):
For the Personal tragedy option, the tragedy must have been experienced directly by the assassin themselves, not by someone who hired them
If the assassin was hired by someone who experienced a personal tragedy, this would resolve as Targeted hit/contract killing only
If the assassin both suffered a personal tragedy AND was being paid, both options could resolve YES if there is evidence for both motives
Update 2024-10-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - For the Personal tragedy option, the assessment will be based on the assassin's subjective experience and perception of events, not an objective measure of harm
Normal bureaucratic processes that caused significant distress to the assassin can qualify as a personal tragedy
If the wrongful denial of claims option resolves YES, the Personal tragedy option will automatically resolve YES
Update 2024-10-12 (PST): - The option 'An attempt to change the incentive structure' will resolve YES if there is:
Direct evidence of intent to alter incentives for healthcare CEOs
OR substantial evidence of intent to influence CEO behavior through fear or threats to 'business as usual' (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2024-10-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - For the Mental health crisis option, an insanity plea would resolve YES
A mental health crisis does not need to be the primary motivation - it only needs to be one of the primary motivations
1,000
3.00
@elf dude is from a rich family and had Aetna insurance at work which is rock solid (source: I have Aetna and hit the yearly out-of-pocket cap every year, so it doesn't just sit there collecting dust). So I'm 99% sure neither him nor his immediate family had any issues with health insurance.
@nsokolsky I always interpreted “wrongful deny or delay” to not be personal (as it’s worded as such + there’s another answer in that vein ) but a general frustration directed towards towards insurance system denials/delays
@tedks could you please clarify this?
@mods am i interpreting this correctly?
Looks like he's from a rich family.
@Odoacre because people attribute anything outside the normal range of behavior as pathology - but this will still likely be officially confirmed.
Already explained:
Mental health crisis" resolves YES if official reports indicate the attacker's primary motivation was related to mental illness or psychosis
But primary motivation according to whom?
@BlueDragon That is AI generated, but an inanity plea, for example, would resolve YES. "Primary" motivation is less important (and an AI phrasing); the way I would say it is "if one of the attacker's primary motivations were related to mental illness or psychosis.
@tedks Not sure being mentally ill is the same as having a mental health crisis?
I'd want to see an actual psychotic episode or significant change in mental health in the run-up for it to be a 'crisis'.
It that manifesto were handed to a hundred people who knew nothing else and they were asked, is this from a left winger or right winger? The response would overwhelmingly be "left winger." If a shooter killed a banker and announced that bankers "continue to abuse our country for immense profit" that would overwhelmingly register as a leftist political opinion. Based purely on that "manifesto" alone (not on what we know from elsewhere) he is a left-winger.
@DonutThrow but that’s the wrong question. What if 100 people were given the manifesto and asked, “is this a radical set of beliefs?” The answer would be YES.
Does it fit a strict right/left paradigm? That part may be redundant but it negates your interpretation of this question as requiring us to assign a simple binary right or left winger label.
It doesn’t fit a strict right/left paradigm because he singles out UnitedHealth specifically, saying it is the “largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy?”
His argument is that this specific corporation is evil and has not justified its profits in terms of benefits to society. That is different from a progressive critique of corporate profits or CEO pay and different from a conservative defense of free market economics.
The expectation that public corporations should benefit society for the greater good to justify profits is radical in the sense that it does not align with any political position that starts from how the system works today. Therefore one can’t strictly ascribe it to the left or right.
@BlueDragon you’re implying left-wingers can’t be radical
Here’s an example: if I called myself an abolitionist because “the police state isn’t effective at fulfilling its aims, police are overworked and should be narrowed to do the one thing they’re good at,” would you interpret that as “doesnt fit cleanly into left wing” ? would I have to say “police are bad because they’re evil and they’re paid too much” for you to consider that LW? Similarly with this guy: his action is anti-corporate, anti-capitalist; his critique is that “this company doesn’t meet the needs of the customers because capitalism incentivizes profit over lives.” That’s a deeply anti-capitalist position, albeit not rooted in “CEO paid too much”
you’re deeply wrong, I hope the market doesn’t resolve using this kind of thinking
@KimberlyWilberLIgt actually, @tedks , could you provide some clarity on how you plan to resolve this option?
What would cause you to resolve NO?
What would cause you to resolve YES?
@KimberlyWilberLIgt @DonutThrow
Are you the same person or just friends? You are displaying the same use of logical fallacy: pose a straw man, appeal to authority, ad hominem attack.
Let’s reset. This is the market option you feel should resolve NO and I have argued should resolve YES:
A set of radical beliefs that do not fit on a strict left/right paradigm
Please don’t @ me any more or bully the market creators or call anyone names.
Actually, i could be wrong about his purported belief system. The Wikipedia page for “Killing of Brian Thompson” says:
[Luigi’s] social media routinely expressed concerns over pornography, DEI programs, fertility rates, "wokeism", secularization, and the decline of Christianity, and promoted traditionalist ideas.
That said I do still wonder how the market creator intends to resolve, and I think it’s reasonable to ask
I've added the option "An attempt to change the incentive structure present at the CEO level of UHC and similar companies." I will resolve this to YES only if there is direct evidence or discussion of altering incentives for healthcare CEOs, ideally directly, but also if there is substantial discussion along the lines of "making them afraid" or "making them reconsider business as usual."