Company audit of dependent insurance or "Your Papers Please"

We had to provide proof that our daughters were still eligible for coverage when they were in college (prior to the change in the law that allowed them to stay on until 26) - and my wife and I have our own coverages through our jobs. 

But I think your outrage is misplaced. The comparison to your tax return misses the point that you had to proved identifiers (SSN) for everyone, and so there is a built in check on the system to some degree when the entire country has to (theoretically) identify themselves. And as to "invasion of privacy", you are asking your employer to cover people that are not you - so it is certainly within their rights to ask for proof that they are legitimately eligible. Sort of like a store requiring a receipt for a return, or the IRS to require a SSN for all your kids you claim as dependents, or the ICE requiring you to have a passport to re-enter the country.

Given the costs to companies of providing insurance, I am not surprised they are asking this as a savings measure. In fact, it is surprising that MORE companies don't.

If you are upset, then what you really want is a change to the system - one that takes the business of providing insurance away from your employer. Ideally one that has a single provider that covers everyone so that the risk pool is adequately spread to keep costs low (administrative costs, outliers of usage, bargaining power for purchasing drugs, etc). You know, the kind of system every other country in the western world uses...

1) No, and 2) No

Here's my question though: Exactly what proof does an income tax return provide in this instance? Couldn't someone just get a blank 1040 and type in whatever information they wanted it to say? Or even do so on Turbo Tax or similar? There is nothing on the 1040 that indicates that particular document was the one that was filed, nothing to "prove" that the information contained therein is correct and valid.

If someone was to fraudulently claim someone as a dependent on their insurance it would be no big deal to create a fraudulent 1040.

1:  No, and 2) No.

Personally, I believe the penalties for cheating the system are way too lenient.  

Good thing I checked with COJ!  I am a little surprised at the answers, but I think I've calmed down some and gotten a different perspective from the comments.  Obviously, I don't condone those who are claiming something they aren't entitled to, and my wife is my wive and my kids are my kids, so I"m not hiding anything. 

FWIW, I would have no problem providing proof at the time of signing up.  For whatever reason, after being with the company for 8 years, this struck a cord with me. 

Now to figure out how to copy my marriage license, which is 18 x 24 doc and in a frame.

My employer (or more properly the insurance company my employer uses) started doing this just a few years ago. Annoying as heck.

Something I'm catching wind of that's coming soon -- employer is going to ONLY cover the employee, and dependend. NOT spouse/SO. Period. Spouse/SO has to either get THEIR employers' insurance, or private.

1. Yes

2. No outrage at all

1. yes

2.  yes

Because I have been with the same company for 25 years and everyone knows my/ our status.  It is again, punishing the law abiding in order to catch the law breakers rather than come flat out and confront the lawbreakers.  I have been married 31 years to the same woman and had no idea where my marriage docs were.  So I had to send off and pay for copies to prove that I am not trying to cheat the company.  That's the sort of outrage I am talking about.

I work for a great company, so I didn't stay outraged for very long, after all they did pay my entry fee into most of my races over the last several years.....no matter how slow I was!

Did you do it yet?  If not, I would take a picture, download to my computer, resize appropriately, print.  Well, I would do the printing, etc, at work since it's for them of course

Take the picture somewhere with enough light that you don't need a flash, to eliminate glare on the frame glass.

I think some of this inreasing scrutiny is a function of the Affordable Care Act kicking in.  According to this article, the per-person fee that your company pays for insurance coverage goes up substantially in 2014 under ACA. 

So the first step in saving money is to make sure they're not covering anyone who's not eligible under their current policies (i.e. non-spouses or non-current spouses).   Since ACA requires your company to cover children up to age 26 but not spouses, the next step for many companies will be to discourage you from covering your spouse under your plan, or simply exclude spouses altogether and only cover employees and their children.

Whistleblowers.  We all know who is cheating here and who is cheating there.  It seems that everywhere we go, laws or procedures are put in place that restrict or penalize the law abiding inorder to stop or catch the law breaking.  That's just my opinion. 

I am aware that our company was trying to comply with the new affordable care act, but was to busy to look up the code that made this procedure necessary.

x2. And to take it one step further, how does a company justify asking some people but not others for that verification, at least without leaving themselves open to charges of discrimination?

I suppose they could just stop providing insurance all together and save lots o money!

From someone who doesn't have employer provided health insurance, it seems a bit ridiculous to get worked up over having to provide a few papers.

How do "we all know"?

How are the law abiding being penalized?

I think JMK & GB pretty much covered what my thoughts are on it.