You find non-economic damages capped, and the ruination of lives, all so middle managers at the docs insurance company can get bigger annual bonuses and golf outings at nicer golf courses.
You obviously did not read carefully enough. The only thing capped would be for non-economic damages, i.e., "pain and suffering","loss of consotium", "mental anguish", etc. In the situation you describe, the doctor should and would be held liable for punitive damages, to punish the act of operating under the influence. You would also be able to recover acutal economic damages, including the cost of caring for that chold for the rest of his/her life.
Try getting the media to define "punitive." Come to think of it, try getting a high school senior to define punitive. No one knows what it means, but if we cap it, we'll surely be doing the wrong thing.
If the media would use your phrase, non-economic damages, the public would have a much clearer understanding of what Bush is actually proposing.