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
Update 2024-17-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): - For the Mental health crisis option, the resolution will use a broader definition of acute mental health as a motive, rather than the technical/clinical definition of a mental health crisis
The assessment will not be strictly limited to official clinical criteria for what constitutes a mental health crisis
1,000
3.00Given the ruling re radical leftism that support for political violence doesn’t automatically make the underlying political belief radical, and the ruling that social democracy / corporate responsibility isn’t a radical belief, would the same apply here?
In other words, if he’s just a run of the mill dude whose only motivating view is that the US healthcare system is in need of reform, that would see this question resolve NO, right?
@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!
@tedks You could resolve as N/A if you like (which just refunds everyone)
However I’ve yet to hear a compelling counterargument to this
“wrongful deny or delay” does not mention the assassin’s personal insurance claims & there’s already another option which covers that therefore it should be understood as general frustration towards wrongful denys or delays by the healthcare system broadly.
Also, the reaction to the murder on social media is indicative of the general frustration many people have to the healthcare system’s denials and delays + the assassin wrote these terms on the bullets he used.
Imo, it would therefore be highly unusual to not include that as a possible motive in this market.
@nsokolsky What do the probabilities become if you provide GPT with additional context that there is an existing option that covers personal claims?
I suspect that would shift it heavily towards my interpretation
@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.
Noted. I don't think this will significantly change how I was planning to resolve this option.
@tedks I'm content that we have evidence that he has a Severe Persistent Mental Illness (SPMI), less so that he had suffered a significant, acute change in his mental state and inability to manage those changes, leading to a 'breakdown', needed for it to be a 'crisis'.
You can be mentally ill for years, a particular crisis is at most going to last 4-6 weeks.
What might be a crisis for one person may be the 'normal' state of things for someone far less well than them.
FWIW there is no evidence for concluding the motives of the UnitedHealth assassin included “mental health crisis”.
You said previously that ipso facto it’s crazy to shoot someone so you are confident that’s what motivated this person.
The link from the National Alliance in Mental Health illustrates that the term “mental health crisis” has a real meaning. What definition are you trying to assert, based in a flyer further linked from that page?
Or are you just being sarcastic, because that page doesn’t succinctly define mental health crisis in a way that can be casually applied by a person running a prediction market to a person alleged to have committed a crime?
@BlueDragon the shooter seems to meet at least three of those criteria. If we also find out he wasn't brushing his teeth, is that now a mental health crisis?
If I have accidentally a highly specific technical term I can only beg your forgiveness. My intention was to have a broader notion of acute mental health as a motive. I'm happy to let the @mods intervene if this is inexcusable. But I think this is very clear and you are not going to get me to resolve it too NO on this technicality or whatever you're trying to do here.
@tedks who me? very respectfully, I am trying to help. When people share information and attempt to clarify resolution criteria, it benefits everyone and improves the markets, in my opinion. This should be done with integrity and with the goal of fair resolutions, regardless of opinions and bets.
What three criteria does the alleged assassin meet, in your opinion, and are you really so confident based on media reports that you have enough information to make this diagnosis?
I asked you the original question because I don't actually think the alleged shooter meets any clinical definition for "mental health crisis", but at this point I am just curious where you are headed with this, as you seem quite stubbornly attached.
Broadly speaking, there is very little overlap between people committing homicides and people experiencing a mental health crisis; based on your explanations I wonder if maybe you meant something else?