It won’t. The only legal articles I’ve been able to find that even come close to addressing this topic state that insurance companies do not care if you are “acting married”. They only care if you are legally married, and only prosecute cases where couples aren’t actually legally married.
I suspect that some have this idea because sham marriages for the purposes of immigration are indeed considered fraud and can lead to deportation and potentially to prosecution. I don’t think insurance companies conduct interviews to confirm that marriages are legit.
No, it’s not. You can marry for whatever reason you want. It would be fraud only if one of them was trying to gain citizenship through a sham marriage.
Certainly, Blue Cross never asked my wife and me to prove the extent of our marital relation.
Have they considered what could happen to their tax rates if they both find themselves fully employed in the future?
Has your girlfriend considered the possibility that she could end up paying alimony if the friend stays un- or under-employed and they eventually dissolve the partnership?
Has the friend fully investigated what might be available to her under the ACA?
Are you certain you want to be involved with someone who sees rules and ethics as so utterly negotiable?
Cosigning with this arrangement seems like something you’ll look back on 20 years from now and wonder what the heck you were thinking. That is, if you’re serious about your GF.
Which leads me to the idea that your GF is not thinking long-term with you. It seems unlikely that she’s thinking of marrying you any time in the near future if she’s planning to make her availability contingent on her friend acquiring her own health insurance policy. If she’s made it to her 40’s without having insurance, then what’s keeping her from taking forever? Too much iffyness.
Maybe you don’t care about marrying her, and yall have already established your relationship isn’t destined to last very long. But if you’re into her, you really need to look at what she’s telling you with this half-baked proposal. It would probably be a good idea to point this out to her and see what she says.
I checked your link for any fraud related to marriage of the kind mentioned. And there is none.
Shows that not all cites actually reinforce your point. Some actually refute them 
Well, I guess they know what they want, but it sounds silly to me. :rolleyes:
Same here. Blue Cross wanted proof that we were legally married (I think. It was a long time ago.) They didn’t ask for proof that we were in love or that we slept in the same bed or even the same house.
Seriously? You marry someone and they don’t live with you. It’s insurance fraud. Knowing about it makes you an accessory.
People get married and have to live apart for work, school, or other reasons. It happens.
Can you cite a legal requirement for married couples to live together?
My in-laws are very much in love, but total hippies who oppose the idea of pieces of paper that say you belong together, as well as the patriarchal institution of marriage. However, when my SO was little they were poor and got married for the benefits.
They’re still together, very much in love, and sometimes my MIL lovingly looks over at my FIL and says “honey, shall we get a divorce now that it doesn’t matter anymore?”
What shall we do with these fraudulent tricksters? Stone 'em? 
Just because you say so?
The marriage license application in my state has no box or anything mentioning love or asking for the reason for marriage. It also doesn’t have anything asking to verify the two parties live at the same address. While it may somehow be fraud, I don’t think any of the cites have actually shown that.
I am in the camp that thinks this endeavor would be horrendously stupid for all involved.
Let’s put aside the question of whether it’s “legal.” What’s Louise’s employer going to think about this arrangement?
After all, every little change in status – how many single employees they have, how many family policies, ages of the insured, etc. – affects the rate quoted the employer. And if Louise is in an at-will state, her employer doesn’t need a “legal” reason to fire her.
And now you know about it, Magiver! Bwaaahaaahaaa!
mmm
Well, they could also fire her for marrying a woman, but she’s not required to disclose to her employee whether it’s Twue Wuv or not, so she’s probably OK there.
No, I don’t know about it. This is someone I don’t know talking about someone I don’t know. The op however, has knowledge of what’s transpired which does have potential legal consequences particularly since he is the boyfriend of the alleged married woman.
[In common law](In common law, an accessory could not be found guilty unless the actual perpetrator was convicted. In most U.S. jurisdictions today, however, an accessory can be convicted even if the principal actor is not arrested or is acquitted. The prosecution must establish that the accessory in some way instigated, furthered, or concealed the crime. Typically, punishment for a convicted accessory is not as severe as that for the perpetrator. An accessory must knowingly promote or contribute to the crime. In other words, she or he must aid or encourage the offense deliberately, not accidentally. The accessory may withdraw from the crime by denouncing the plans, refusing to assist with the crime, contacting the police, or trying to stop the crime from occurring.), an accessory could not be found guilty unless the actual perpetrator was convicted. In most U.S. jurisdictions today, however, an accessory can be convicted even if the principal actor is not arrested or is acquitted. The prosecution must establish that the accessory in some way instigated, furthered, or concealed the crime. Typically, punishment for a convicted accessory is not as severe as that for the perpetrator.
An accessory must knowingly promote or contribute to the crime. In other words, she or he must aid or encourage the offense deliberately, not accidentally. The accessory may withdraw from the crime by denouncing the plans, refusing to assist with the crime, contacting the police, or trying to stop the crime from occurring.
It would be best if the op kept this to himself. If this is insurance through her employer then they can fire her over it.
I was wrong, it’s not considered insurance fraud. It would only be considered fraud if they were trying to get citizenship for one of them. Sorry!