The S&P 500 is closing in on its all-time high, and is likely to sail past it, as long as the Fed promises lower interest rates and the trade war calms down.Market Insiderread more
In a tweet, Trump said that he and Xi "had a very good telephone conversation," and that "our respective teams will begin talks prior to our meeting."Politicsread more
A Bloomberg News report Tuesday morning said the White House had looked at such a move in February.Marketsread more
President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced that he will not nominate acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan to hold the position in a permanent capacity. Army Secretary...Politicsread more
Stocks surged after President Donald Trump said he will be meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at the upcoming G-20 summit.US Marketsread more
The move is part of a larger trend that saw the survey's 179 participants move away from risk and toward positions that reflect fear of a coming economic slowdown spurred by a...Marketsread more
Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden on Monday appealed to a billionaire Republican donor for fundraising help in his presidential campaign. But the financier, Trump-supporting...Politicsread more
Facebook and other groups are behind a new programming language for working with the Libra blockchain.Technologyread more
Tesla investors are regaining confidence in a quieter Elon Musk — even as they question the company's ability to hit its production goals for the second quarter.Autosread more
Long-time blockchain technologists say Facebook's Libra digital currency will introduce billions to cryptocurrencies, but the company's problems with trust and privacy remain...Technologyread more
Valisure, an online pharmacy company, told the FDA that high levels of dimethylformamide were found in valsartan, a drug produced by Swiss drugmaker Novartis and other...Health and Scienceread more
A looming Supreme Court case threatens to lead to millions of people leaving individual market health insurance plans—and to very steep price hikes for people remaining in those plans, two new analyses find.
The studies released Thursday by the Rand Corp. and the Urban Institute suggest that two-thirds of the U.S. individual insurance markets—which sell health coverage to people who don't get insurance through their employers—could be crippled, if not wrecked by a court decision that goes against the Obama administration.
Rand's study found that a total of more than 9.6 million people would leave the individual health insurance rolls in 34 states served by HealthCare.gov, the federal Obamacare exchange, if the Supreme Court rules subsidies issued through that marketplace are illegal under the Affordable Care Act.
Without such subsidies, many people would find their monthly premiums unaffordable.
"This decline includes plans sold in the [government-run Obamacare] marketplaces and those sold outside of the marketplaces that comply with ACA," the study said.
Rand also projected that individual insurance premiums in those states would leap by 47 percent if the subsidies are yanked by a high court decision. Rand cited as an example a jump that would translate into a 40-year-old nonsmoker enrolled in a so-called silver plan paying an extra $1,610 in premium payments annually.
The estimated price increase stems from the fact that many people, particularly the younger and healthier, would stop buying insurance if they no longer received subsidies through HealthCare.gov, leaving a disproportionate of older, sicker enrollees in the plans, and using health benefits.
"The departure of young and healthy people from the health insurance market would cause premiums to rise further, leading to a cycle of additional departures and further premium increases," the study said.
Christine Eibner, a Rand senior economist and the study's senior author, said, "The disruption would cause significant instability and threaten the viability of the individual health insurance market in the states involved."
Read More5 ways to slash health-care costs
"Our analysis confirms just how much the subsidies are an essential component to the functioning of the ACA-compliant individual market," Eibner said.
In its own study, the Urban Institute found that by 2016, the number of people without insurance in HealthCare.gov states would increase by nearly 8.2 million if the Supreme Court ruled that HealthCare.gov customers cannot get financial assistance to help pay their premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. That financial aid would be worth an estimated $28.8 billion in those states by 2016.
Texas alone would see 1.4 million fewer insured residents, and there would be more than 1 million Florida residents without insurance if the court's decision wiped out the subsidies, according to the Urban Institute.
Read MoreObamacare tax man cometh, ready?
And "average premiums in the nongroup [individual] market would increase by an estimated 35 percent," the Urban Institute brief said. In dollar terms, that means that average nongroup premiums would go up $1,460 per year, from $4,130 to $5,590, according to the study, which was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
"The Supreme Court's decision will have far-reaching effects on the number of uninsured Americans and premiums," said Andrew Hyman, senior program officer at the foundation.
"The court's decision could significantly undermine the stability of insurance markets in dozens of states, which will impact those who are covered as well as the remaining uninsured," Hyman said.
The two analyses were spurred by the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case challenging the HealthCare.gov subsidies. Oral arguments in the case known as King v. Burwell are set for March.
The subsidies on the exchange help reduce monthly premiums—often significantly—when income falls between one and four times the federal poverty level. In 2014, the federal poverty level for a family of three was just under $19,800.
Plaintiffs in King v. Burwell argue that the subsidies cannot be given to HealthCare.gov customers because the Affordable Care Act does not explicitly talk about granting financial assistant through a federally run Obamacare exchange, while it does explicitly do so for customers of exchanges run by individual states.
The Obama administration has scoffed at that argument, saying the overall language of the ACA authorizes HealthCare.gov subsidies, and that the law has long been understood as designed to reduce the number of people without health insurance nationwide, regardless of who operates the exchanges.
The Supreme Court case does not threaten the legality of subsidies given to customers of state-run exchanges.
A decision in the case is expected in June.