the legislature may see it differently. that is one of the points in the act. the states have the rights to make that decision based on what they think is in the best interest of their people back home. the same thing with expansion of medicaid. some have chosen to do it. some have chosen not to do it. the ability to make those decisions is part of what many people favor with in the act. >> in addition to the discussion about renewing canceled policies, there's also been some discussion about extending this past the end of march to allow more americans to enroll in health coverage given the problems with the healthcare.gov website.

what do you think about the wisdom of doing that? >> you are changing the rules after it has been set. what does that do to the actuarial calculations that are in place right now under the assumption that you would have a certain number within that pool? in the sense of getting more people in the pool, that has more than appeal. that is important to the nature of the pool. the larger the pool, the better chance you have of having perhaps lower rates because you will have the only people with health conditions but you will have healthy people in the pool as well. there is an advantage in doing it. i just do not know what the consequences of changing that particular structure would have on the rates. >> one area they have control over us what to do in response to the position to delay open

enrollment for 2015 by a month to presumably give carriers an extra month of claims data. it is decided to move this around. what are your members thinking about doing? what do you think the consensus is there? >> some states do have authorities over rates. others did not have any authority whatsoever. that is a concern. health and human services has some control or authority with respect to rates. i suspect that remains to be seen, how they are going to react to what ever the claims data shows for that extra time frame. everybody understands that when

you change the rules, to not be surprised if there are some surprises. it is difficult enough when you have a closed time for calculations based on this timeframe. it is only harder when the timeframe has opened up an additional data is brought in after rates have been established. we will all weather through this. the industry has. blue cross blue shield has announced they are allowing coverage to be extended. we will perhaps have to look back at the first of the year to try to calculate how this all worked.

>> any large piece of legislation is subject to a certain amount of revision and fixes and so forth. there has been quite a few of them down at the 11th hour. how much of this to you think was avoidable. >> if this had not become frozen in time where there is no effort to try to approve it, change it without regard to whether it is being appealed or not, perhaps it would be a different situation. these plans can never simply be static.

legislative changes have been made over the year. when that does not happen, it is very difficult to take advantage of experience and/or better ideas on how to approach something. if it is established that the penalty is insufficient to get people to join, maybe you move away from that info to open or closed enrollment periods. if it stays frozen in time, some of the stuff that should be approved will stay there and not get approved. it will become a bill that can

now be improved or at least changed. not everybody agrees this is an improvement. >> what will it take to thaw out the legislative process? >> my name is benjamin, not merlin. it has to take some time. the positions are so polarized right now that it is obviously not possible for it to occur. if there is a change in the polarization, maybe it is possible to have some cooperation and working together to try to find some fixes to the things people are identifying as being problematic. >> the reports are suggesting

that groups are planning a major span specifically on the health care law. what possibility is there for this thawing out you are describing knowing we're going into the midterms with this opposition? >> i do not know. very often the midterm elections and up with the white house in charge having more of the opposition elected in the house or even within the senate. there are some exceptions but that typically is the case. i do not know. i do not imagine that there will be many people running next year in opposition to the white house that will be running to say i want to improve and send me to washington to improve the affordable care act. i do not imagine that will happen. i do not have a crystal ball. i am going on past experience. this could change.

>> that keeps the law frozen in time? >> until both sides are willing to come together and able to come together and find common legislation and agreement about how to change the law, it'll stay frozen in time to the extent the white house is unable or chooses not to make certain changes in implementation as in the case of the policies. that will be more in the arena of suggestions or time to change the law and leading it up to the states and industry to make certain adjustments. that will not be consistent everywhere, obviously. it is not mandated.

it does not have the full force of the law. that means there will not be an overall comprehensive change to the law even coming from those directions. >> one of the polarizing issues is the contraception coverage requirement, it was not something considered to be controversial at the time. it has emerged in a very big way including in your own state. is there any suggestion that you might have or idea out there for a way that there might be a compromise that results in a decision before it reached the supreme court decision stage? >> i do not know. polarization is pretty severe in this situation. i have heard all of the arguments. i do not think anybody knows the answer to that.

apart from having options for companies to choose whether or not they are going to cover or not. that does seem to be the one area where some people are in agreement. there are others that want to mandate how coverage to be included. it has never been mandated in the past. they have either use policies to cover or not cover it. in the absence of a mandate, it will be in this area of disagreement. >> we have five minutes left. >> let me ask you a little bit more about a job that your members are doing. you alluded earlier to the great variation that exists between states in terms of what insurance regulators are able to do. as some have great authority to

review and reject insurance premiums they deem unjustified in other states. there's little authority to change rates. it is fair to say that one of the goals of the affordable care act was to increase oversight of insurance premiums and what insurers are doing. would you like to see the states that do not have strong oversight systems to improve them legislatively if necessary? >> i support the state-based system. the president said, referring to it in his announcement, i support the state-based system. i think they can make certain decisions about what is in the best interest of their constituents. consequently, i happen to be a jeffersonian democrat and believes very strongly in the

laboratory of democracies and having multiple approaches rather than a single approach. you can see what happens when you try to have a single approach. i think it is in the best interest of the people back home when their governor does what they feel is best for their people. i am very supportive of the differences. i think that some of the best legislation to protect consumers has developed. not out of washington but back home. i am strongly supportive of state right to be able to make many of these decisions that have been engaged in the civil rights action and legislation. overall, i think the states have served people back home very

well, doing it their way. >> final question. >> i am a former insurance commissioner as well as governor. i can look at it from the eyes of a commissioner as well as from the eyes of a governor and a senator. having seen all of those different views and looked at the viewpoints, i strongly support what is happening with the states having that right. apparently, the president does as well. >> asking you as a former insurance commissioner, do you feel the states with rate review authority or trying to negotiate with carriers have seen more competitive premiums? do you think it is not as clear- cut as some would suggest? >> i know some of the states that do not have right now a rate of approval have been seeking it and perhaps they will end up getting it through their state legislatures.

i think it is a state issue. some believe in open competition without regard to dealing with approval of rates. they seem to be satisfied with it. others would rather have more control over rates. states have control over rates. once again, i think it is really a state issue where commissioners and governors and legislatures can decide what is best and what works best. if it does not, they have the opportunity to change it. one of the problems we're seeing right now with having a single approach out of washington is that it is very difficult for washington to deal with every issue that comes up. we're seeing that right now. >> that is it for our time, senator nelson. thank you very much for joining us. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. it is always a pleasure to be on

your show. thank you. >> let me ask you about what is ahead for consumers. it seems as though there are still a lot of the insurgency -- uncertainty among which states will be participating and certain aspects that won't. >> there would always be discussion over medicaid expansion. their markets existed even before the law kicked in and mitigated some of the impact. over the last couple of weeks, some of the changes that have come down is coming back to the state insurance commissioner. some of the most important people in the room have gotten forgotten. you're going to see this very different experience across state lines for a law that was supposed to be federal in

uniform. >> the consumer experience in california is going to be very different from nebraska. that is different than the number of health plans a consumer might have, how aggressively regulators were looking at the prices and pushing back on insurers to make sure the prices were as low as possible. i think the problems over the past few weeks with the canceled policies and responses from different states is only going to exacerbate the difference is further. if you are a consumer and connecticut or colorado, you might look at this law as a great thing. you get a lot of different things to do. if you get in a state where it is not working so well, you might look at this as a terrible thing. >> the politics of the states going into the law are almost predetermining the likelihood of states passing them.

they often set up exchanges which are working better. in some cases commissioners have been more aggressive about negotiating great spirit and taxes, it might feel like you're getting a bad experience but you are predisposed. >> we learned the supreme court is set to review it. we will hear the case may be as early as march. what does this add to the mention of understanding what the provisions of the law actually will be? is there a possibility that the review will go farther? >> the people who supported the requirements, they are very concerned of the consideration. you can argue whether there's

some debate over whether they can have this on their own. they would see this as they did with the legislative amendment that was put forward. they're certainly very nervous about it. >> it is important to keep in mind that there has been a lot of talk of the law is back before the supreme court. the case that was before the supreme court last year and the decision they made was on the fundamental foundation of the law. let's remember there is a chance that the entire law can get thrown out. this is a very careful point of the law. if you believe contraception can or cannot be covered, this is an important issue. what the justices decide, i do not think it will fundamentally change the law or make its future more or less certain. >> last question. november 30 was the self-imposed

deadline by secretary sebelius on fixing healthcare.gov. how important is it to the actual success of the law but it works this time around for people? >> you have to look at the folks who are running around the states who are in the same position as the people who are more anxious than anybody. it is extremely stressful for the administration setting the deadline. it keeps them calm thank you to them from supporting legislation that has more fundamentals of the law. >> the indications are that it will still be problematic going forward. there are probably going to be other things that are not going to work quite well. the administration may say it is a lot better. i think it is a lot better. people are getting through.

>> it seems to be sure that whether or not they are seeing commercials for health care policies or political ads, 2014 will be there. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> on the next washington journal, what to expect from helder -- healthcare.gov. scott wilson joins us. then state health-care exchanges and online enrollment compared to the federal exchange. in recognition of the wonder 50 of anniversary, a discussion about the law in dealing with whistleblowers and it's effectiveness. plus, your calls and e-mails all on "washington journal."