Did anybody see George Bush's speech today at a Las Vegas hospital. He
demonstrated to me that he has very little understanding of the legal
system.

He kept saying over and over again that "these junk lawsuits" against
doctors have to stop. He didn't define what a "junk lawsuit" was....as
far as I know the term has no legal meaning whatsoever. I suppose he
means frivolous or vexatious lawsuits? OK. So what's his solution?
Limiting non-pecuniary damages to $250,000. Mr. Bush, how does
limiting non-pecuniary damages prevent "junk lawsuits". If you are
awarded such damages, your lawsuit must have been deemed to have
merit! Why doesn't he tell it like it like it like it is? He wants to
limit pain and suffering awards to an artificial cap even if the
innocent victim, in the opinion of an unbiased finder of fact, ought
to be entitled to more. This position is not wholly without merit I
suppose, but at least have the guts to tell the truth. Don't accuse
legitimate victims of medical malpractice of filing "junk lawsuits".

He then went on to say he doesn't want to deny anyone their day in
court against "bad docs" (he called them "docs" instead of doctors a
few dozen times - I guess he thinks this makes him come off sounding
more folksy?). Mr. Bush, if a doctor makes a mistake that doesn't make
him a "bad doc", it makes him human. You have the choice to spread the
risk of medical malpractice across the population, or saddle random
innocent victims with that burden. You have chosen the latter. Just
have the courage to say so. I have a feeling if Laura went in for brow
lift and ended up getting both her legs amputated George would all of
a sudden think she should be entitled to more than $250,000 in
non-pecuniary damages (and he would be right). He's simply taking
advantage for political gain the human nature belief that "it will
never happen to me".