Ok, so I'm thinking. Perhaps this HCR thing is more like Medicare Part D than anything else (and no that is not original with me). A Frankenstein's Monster of a bill the major purpose of which was to syphon money into the pockets of the Pharmaceutical Industry. In passing it also kind of helped people on Medicare. Although it wasn't designed to really help people, but that was the way it was sold. Essentially Medicare recipients were the conduit to funnel the money into the industry. Now it did help people to an extent, but it also has up to this point been a disaster for Medicare funding. It does give people on Medicare about 80% of what they need to cover the costs of their medications in the most convoluted and expensive way possible.
Is it better than nothing? Maybe. But on the other hand it has been nothing to build on and it hasn't been changed although everyone recognizes it as a give a way to drug companies. It was also designed to prevent any competition for the drug companies and to permit them to rape the tax payer. Sound familiar.
The excessive costs permit conservatives to argue that we cannot help people because we just can't afford it, don't you see. So perhaps in the long run maybe it is worse to have that program. The argument on the other side is if we do not have this kind of program then we will prevent any program and people will die. Or it will be so long before you get any program that people will die. The fault of the deaths of these people are always on the shoulders of the people who are pushing for social programs, never on the shoulders of those who are preventing reasonable programs from being implemented, for some strange reason.
So here is the way it is presented: Is it better to have a program to help people with their medications rather than give them nothing? It is better to provide people with private insurance rather than provide them with no coverage for their medical needs? Are those the only choices? Is an elephant shit sandwich better than a cat shit sandwich for dinner? Well elephants only digest about 40% or the food they eat and cats all most all of it. So if you have to pick through shit to get to some kind of sustenance then I guess elephant shit is better than cat shit. Although, I'm not sure that's how I want my bread buttered.