Here is the situation:
A shooter kills Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, in midtown Manhattan.The shooter escaped, but we have a clear photograph of his face.A national manhunt is underway.The most promising way to find the shooter is for someone to identify him and tell police where he is.
Here is my question: Why hasn't the widow or UnitedHealthcare stepped up with a significant reward? I am contemplating a reward big enough that it attracts attention, a reward big enough that the shooter's high school classmates notice the reward, begin looking closely at the photos, and identify him. I am thinking about a reward big enough that 335 million Americans pay attention. How big a reward? A million dollars sounds about right.
It might make a difference. Moreover, the million-dollar reward would be a gesture of respect.
I am feeling my way here about the social rules for "paying one's respects" in a situation like this. I would appreciate some advice from readers. Rewards for information -- who should offer them and how much -- aren't uncharted territory, but this situation is unique. It comes at a moment when some people are expressing glee -- or at least lack of sorrow -- that he was shot. That is unusual. Plus the victim is unusual in being seriously wealthy. Precedents and standards of behavior are unclear to me, but it seems to me that neither the widow nor UnitedHealthcare is doing even the bare minimum. It seems cheap, even insulting, under the circumstances.
Brian Thompson earned $10 million last year. Earlier this year he made a well-timed sale of $15 million worth of his UHC stock and collected the proceeds. That sets the level of financial capacity for the widow.
Brian Thompson was shot and killed while on the job for UnitedHealthcare. He was at the Hilton Hotel early to make a speech representing his employer. He died because of his job, while doing his job. That, too, sets a standard.
But for four days, amid a national news story about the manhunt and the need for tips from the public, the only reward for information was the $10,000 offered by the taxpayers of New York City. Finally, yesterday, the FBI -- American taxpayers -- added $50,000 to the reward, bringing the reward for information to $60,000.
I would think a widow of a guy who brought home $25 million this year, even if she hated him and was glad he was dead, might want to make a gesture, out of respect or obligation, if not out of sorrow.
Where is UHC? Even if police thought that a reward would be wasted money -- which is not how they feel, since they themselves are offering rewards -- I would think that UHC would feel a sense of obligation and propriety here. Five weeks income -- one million dollars as a reward -- would make a statement that UHC cares about its employees: "If you kill one of ours, we come after you." That's a good message for UHC. But no reward? It seems cold.
This whole murder and the public's reaction have been weird. I have been surprised at how widespread has been the "he-had-it-coming" commentary on social media. We are supposed to sympathize with the victim, not a shooter. I do. A murder like this is terrorism, defined as violence to send a political message. Terrorism begets more terrorism. Americans are supposed to be against terrorism. I am. Thompson wasn't just a symbol of an industry; he was a husband, father, and employee. Don't they want to show that they feel sorrow that a human being, someone close to them, was killed?
Maybe I am wrong here. Maybe there is no expectation that a widow or a business fund a reward, and I am a sentimental fool to expect otherwise. I won't dwell on judging the widow. But UHC has a brand and an identity as a business. If its goal is to communicate that the business has no sense of duty, of sympathy, of respect, it couldn't do a better job of it than being missing on funding a reward. Maybe UHC is simply communicating its true character, and is happy to do so, that it is a cold numbers-driven business, run by heartless cheapskates, and the business is profitable because it doesn't pay out a penny more than is absolutely required. UHC is shameless. If it can get away without paying, it does. Let the taxpayers pick up the tab.
[Note: To receive this blog daily by email, go to: https://petersage.substack.com
Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
11 comments:
Not that it should matter all that much, but the Thompsons were reportedly separated at the time of the killing. But what about the association of health insurance companies providing a sizable reward? They're all busy reassessing their security status as it is.
Transactional, identity-driven justice is increasingly the norm. NYC is also the site of the Penny criminal homicide trial, wherein a white Marine is charged for killing a mentally-ill, drugged-up, and unstable homeless black man who had struck fear in fellow subway riders.
Who knows what’s going through their minds? For all we know, they paid to have him killed. A more interesting question to me is how the killer could shoot someone in the middle of downtown Manhattan and simply disappear.
We don’t know the state of their marriage. For all we Know, she might have paid the guy to shoot him. 😱😀
And Penny got away with killing a Black man who frightened people.
Does anyone expect a health insurance company to show compassion now?
If their marriage was on the rocks, he was still the father of their two kids. And if she arranged the murder, then all the more reason for her to want to appear to be either grieving or at least respectable. Not a Merry Widow. I would like to think that if I got shot and killed by someone that my widow, Debra, would at least make some gesture at a reward, although I alas did not bring home $25 million last year. And some, small, "celebration of life" event.You know: just enough to keep up appearances. Maybe there are no rules of propriety and obligation anymore. No need to bring a house-gift bottle of wine when going to dinner at someone's house. But if the widow arranged to kill her husband, the words on the bullets were a good red herring. My bet is that she didn't do it or have it done. UnitedHealcare should make some gesture, in my opinion.
I view from a different angle. What about a person who has information? Where is the sense of duty? If that person is holding out for a reward, or a bigger reward, I would not have high regard for him/her.
I'm afraid you're right. When a trash-talking racist conman and sexual molester is elected president, it's pretty obvious that propriety no longer applies. It's all a matter of what you can get away with.
The purpose of the reward is less to pay people for "ratting out" a person you recognize than it is to create a reason for people to pay attention to others. Now there is a million dollar life-altering reason to notice people and bother to call the police.
Penny's worse than the Thompson assassin, eh?
The killer was caught today in Pennsylvania. As for Thompson's marriage, I heard that he and his wife had been separated and living apart for quite a few years. Perhaps they never finalized a divorce for convenience sake. They were living apart. Thus, the wife may have few emotions. Also, since Thompson was killed on the job, it would be the obligation of his wealthy employer to fund any rewards.
Post a Comment