But the difference isn't really very significant, one is 1d6+4+level, the other is chamod+level. Assuming that the person with Inspiring Leader is a Sorc/Bard/Warlock/Paladin that will be maxing out its Cha, you are only looking at an average difference of 2.5 hit points (or even less if you manage to get yourself some Tomes of Influence or something).
Sure it is possible that those 2.5 hit points could make the difference, but I think it is more likely that Inspiring Leader's proactive approach will make the difference by giving you the hit points prior to the fight that you need them in, rather than after the fight when you are already dead.
That's not quite accurate, however. The 0 hp mechanic also normally ignores extra damage (outside of instant death rules) so someone with 6 hp is in a better position than someone with 9 hp (6 hp + 3 thp) when both take 10 points of damage, for example. After applying the 3 hp from inspiring leader that individual still remained at 0 hp but after applying the healer feat that individual either has 1 hp (whack-a-mole application) or the actual role for healing. In this example, the average difference using the healer feat would be 7.5+level. Anytime we add that 0 hp mechanic into the equation it's going to skew the average.
Inspiring leader can be situationally better but it can only be used before hand so once the temp hp are gone it becomes inactive until after a rest. The healer feat has uses after the healing with stabalization, has a better bonus on top of also catching any 0 hp excess damage, can be used in or out of combat as needed, and has no ability score requirement at all so it seems to be more universally applicable than inspiring leader.
I participated in the debate on the WotC forums at the time and my position was that the initial bonus looks good and can be beneficial, but it's what happens after the bonus is lost that makes the difference. I prefer the healer feat first and inspiring leader second. Both are good feats.
@
Zardnaar: You post this same issue, wait a while, then post it again. It was answered for you on the WotC forums with the same general replies so I would find asking it again more questionable than the actual feat itself. ;-)
I agree that the healer feat looks great compared to cure wounds. It provides a lot of healing over the course of the day. However, it still faces the restrictions of the once per person per short rest and requires consumable equipment. The higher level a person gets the less often whack-a-mole actually happens because someone would more likely use an AoE healing spell for efficiency when someone drops to 0 hp, or use healing word with range as a bonus action. The healer feat looks good at higher levels while still compared to low level healing spells, but not necessarily healing in general.
Spending one action on mass cure wounds, for example, clearly has better action economy when healing becomes necessary fast, and spells like prayer of healing or aura of vitality provide a lot of healing efficiently without needing a short rest recharge. The restoration spells and lay-on-hands are still quick answers to status effects that the healer feat does not. I think magical healing is still easily a viable option over the healer feat and that you are missing the bigger picture.
I really like the way 5e has implemented non-spell options. Adding healing potions to the standard equipment list and connecting them to herbalism, short rest HD healing, and feats like healer can add to the hit point concept abstractly or they can simulate first aid. For me, I'm glad to see that a solid healing option exists for all classes that doesn't impact verisimilitude regardless of game style. It's also nice to use those options on classes that I would typically associate with healing in the character concepts like bards and rangers without being forced into using spells to add the healing to the concepts. I'm comfortable on either class with the healer feat, herbalism kit proficiency, and medicine proficiency to fit concept and then fill spells known without healing spells.
I don't think the healer feat is over powered when compared to the full list of healing spells instead of low level examples, and having the feat in the game does nothing but open up options and concepts without creating issues for other characters. It also opens up spell use better than "need a healbot" spell caster.