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
Update 2024-13-12 (PST): - Drug-induced psychosis will be considered part of the Mental health crisis option (AI summary of creator comment)
Update 2024-13-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - Radical leftism will resolve YES if motives are based on:
Ideology supporting collectivization of means of production
Support for expropriation/redistribution of wealth
Extra-legal revolution for leftward economic shift
Membership in DSA or explicit agreement with DSA principles
Radical leftism will resolve NO if motives are based on:
Support for European-style socialized healthcare
General social democracy or welfarism
Belief that corporations should be socially beneficial
Update 2024-13-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - For the Radical Leftism option, advocating for stakeholder capitalism, corporate regulation, or corporate social responsibility will not qualify as radical leftist motives
The use of radical/extreme tactics (like assassination) does not automatically make the underlying political beliefs radical for resolution purposes
1,000
1.00@tedks https://www.axios.com/2024/12/13/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killing-insurer-suspect-not-client
UHC just confirmed he wasn't a client. I guess still plausible a family member was but this doesn't seem likely for his motivations due to his alienation from his family, personal struggles with his back and ideological movement, etc...
The ? is not "what r his opinions " It's what opinions brought him to kill BT?
@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?
@elf GPT-Pro provides the following breakdown. I think it should resolve as the first option in the screenshot.
@tedks you're the market creator! You have full discretion to resolve options, even those submitted by others!
@MalachiteEagle I agree that "drug-induced psychosis" seems to be entirely subsumed by "mental health crisis" but you're welcome to add the option.
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'.
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer I think the thing that identifies it as a crisis is shooting someone. But I see your point.
@tedks the term "mental health crisis" has a specific meaning, especially as it relates to social services and police, therefore please consider resolving this based on that understanding, e.g. https://www.nami.org/support-education/publications-reports/guides/navigating-a-mental-health-crisis/ rather than more broadly based on how a defendant might plead in court, or the fact that yes of course shooting someone is crazy.
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
@KimberlyWilberLIgt I've previously answered this question in other comments IIRC, but I intend to resolve "radical leftism" to YES if the motives for the assassination are motivated by an ideology towards collectivization of the means of production or expropriation and redistribution of wealth, or towards a less radical leftward economic shift brought about by extra-legal revolution, peaceful or otherwise. One's leftist beliefs can be radical, or one's means of bringing about one's less-radical leftist beliefs have to be radical, in order for one to be a radical leftist. I consider Marxism, Anarchism, and other socialist schools such as Christian Socialism or Utopian Socialism, to be radical, whether they are advocated in a revolutionary or electoralist sense. For the purposes of this market, even though I don't find them very radical, I would accept DSA membership or a statement from the ultimately-confirmed assassin (who may not be Luigi Mangione ultimately! all the evidence has not yet come out) along the lines of "I broadly agree with the DSA and committed this assassination because of that" as sufficient to resolve this option YES. Eurosocialism, social democracy, and welfarism are NOT radically left beliefs (they are left, but not radically so), and if the ultimately-confirmed assassin says something along the lines of "My actions were motivated by a desire to move the United States towards a policy of socialized medical care along European lines" I would resolve this option NO. This is not a radical position in the United States and is espoused by large swaths of the Democratic Party, which is not a radical organization.
The expectation that corporations should be socially beneficent is NOT radical. This is the attitude espoused by Klaus Schwab and the WEF, Elizabeth Warren and large swaths of the Democratic Party, and historically also by Republicans, who have a track record of insisting that corporations uphold "family values" or "western values." So in fact, this is a very UN-radical belief. I do not think it's a radical left belief, or a radical right belief, or a radical belief outside the left or right spectrum (though I did not create that option and am unsure whether I can resolve it).
@BlueDragon I'm not going to read all that. 90% of people reading that manifesto would say it was written by a leftist. The radical part was the willingness to kill. Put the two together and it's radical leftism.