solicitor general elana kagan spoke in cambridge, mass., on june 3. she was the dean of harvard law school until earlier this year when she was confirmed the solicitor general. [applause] >> such a pleasure to be here. there's all this clutter around, so i'm going to clear it. ok. congratulations, everyone. it is a special join with me that i can come back and share with you again. i feel closely attached to this group. i said a few years ago, they as students and i esteem, we had begun together, and for a similar reason i feel very close and moved by this class because we are finishing together. u.s. students, and again, me as dean. so i will always think of you as my fellow graduates. i have a fabulous job right now. it is a tremendous job. so if i could just echo how important it is to love your job, it is really important to love your job, and i love my job. i have a three-part test. for whether a job is worth doing. everything has to come in three parts of your law professor, right? here's my test. the first is that the job challenges you intelle

elaine that kagan, smart, talented. so judge sotomayor, as i said, i think she is a reasonable choice for the president to make. as far as individual senators' evaluations, that will be determined by the confirmation process, which she will get to answer. we'll see how the senate treats her. my view is she was a reasonable choice for president obama to make. >> you mentioned among the finalists, but she had a long tenure as a circuit court judge and that was one of the results of justice sooter, the president might want to have someone with more record to see how they would make a decision. do you think we have reached a point where if someone has not only had a long record as a circuit court judge but hasn't even served as a judge we're not going to see that person nominated, governors or other people, and do you think that's a good or bad thing? >> i think that is definitely a relevant factor in tchay and age. i think the fact that judge sotomayor had 245 record and others didn't was a very important consideration to

steve kagan can testify to that. it is always better to be in a collaborative mode and to listen. part of the reason, it is not just the politics of it. these are genuinely complicated issues. nobody has all the right answers. what we have to do is find the 80% step that everybody agrees on, things like electronic medical records that can eliminate errors and hospitals. right now, nurses cannot read the doctor's handwriting, but if it comes out on a pda they are reading, they are more likely to be accurate. everybody agrees there is no reason you should have to fill out five or six or eight forms every time you go to see a doctor. huge amounts of wasted money. electronic billing and billing that you can understand. everybody knows that is something that needs to be done. there are things that can be done that republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, we all know we need to have. the challenge will revolve around how we deal with the 20% of the stuff for people disagree. this whole issue of the public plan is a a good example. a number of my republican friends have said we canno

also referred to a specialist stem cell transplantation for high dose fi chemotherapy kagan more chemo to prepare for a stem cell transplant. these treatments work long and difficult in nature. in the midst of the chemo treatment he received a phone call in her letter from the insurance company stating his insurance was canceled. it was rescinded all the way back to the effective date of august 7, 2004. which was before his diagnosis for cancer. this month none of his cancer treatments would be covered at all. most importantly, he would not be able to receive the stem cell treatment needed to save his life. my brother only have a small window of time and which to have the stem cell transplants. he needed to be scheduled within the next three to four weeks or he would not be able to have the transplant at all and his life would be and very shortly. my brother was told he was cancelled during what they called a routine review during which they claimed to discover a material failure to disclose, as they stated in their letter. apparently, in the year 2000, his trading doctor had done a ct