Few documentaries can ever be purely "objective," but Moore is well known for making films that are deliberately slanted and are really pieces of advocacy rather than documentaries in the ideal sense. He has every right to make such films, and certainly such films are more likely to make him money and win him fame than would be the case if he attempted to make even-handed, "balanced" films. Moore feels passionately about the causes in which he believes. His films are privately funded; so far as I know, he receives no government grants. He is, paradoxically, a perfect example of a highly successful capitalist.
The idea of most documentaries is to shed light on something that, for many people, is dark or unknown. This particular genre is designed primarily to enlighten an audience about a topic; while making money is certainly a goal, it is generally secondary to the subject matter. In Michael Moore's case, those two goals seem to me to be reversed, which causes me to wonder how much of his "truth" is really just sensationalism and showmanship in order to make a buck. I certainly don't blame him, but I also don't trust him.
I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore's work, since I feel he uses many logical fallacies in his "documentaries". He overly appeals to the emotions of his audience and exaggerates information to appear factual. What makes "Sicko" different, to me, is that there is really little argument from most Americans about the accurate assessment of how flawed and failing the American health care system is. Everyone knows about the high cost of insurance and treatment. Everyone knows how crowded emergency rooms are. It doesn't take a trip to Cuba to convince us of that.
While I agree with much of his politics, I feel that his movies actually do more harm than good to the actual causes they purport to inform us about.
With all of Moore's work we need to remember that he is trying to make a point dramatically, and does everything he can to acheive this aim. Who can forget the beginning of Bowling for Columbine when Moore goes into a bank that offers a free fire arm for customers opening an account to show the absurdity of American gun laws? Clearly, this documentary makes valuable points regarding the inequitable nature of the American health system.
Even opponents of Moore's sensationalism beleived that this movie was meaningful. I think all of us admit that our health care system is not working. Sometimes seeing the absurdities brought to life is enough to make us admit it.
I think what Moore does well is highlight an important topic and tries to examine every aspect of it. In the case of Sicko, Moore looks at the healthcare industry and tries to take an exhaustive look at all the ways it affects our society. However, I find that Moore uses the film to illustrate a preconceived notion. In addition, he stages elaborate and unusual situations to prove a point. These situations would not normally occur and therefore could not fit his argument. I think documentary films like Sicko should allow their stories and their images to drive the film not an ostensibly omniscient and biased narrator.
I think that a basic opinion that can be asserted about the film is how it calls attention to the challenges of health care in the United States. There might be disagreement on what Moore feels is the solution to the problem, but I think that there can be nearly universal acceptance of the problems in the US health care system. My opinion is that Moore does a good job of articulating how there is fundamental conflict in the American health care system between the desire for profit and the need to ensure that those who are sick can receive quality and affordable health care. The collusion between business and health care providers is one that crowds out the economically challenged individual who needs health care. I feel that this is shown very well, articulated in a manner where one leaves the film understanding that there is a problem in the health care system in America. Again, there might be a good deal of healthy and vigorous disagreement about the solution offered. The models that Moore uses to substantiate his thought might evoke some passionate debate. Yet, I don't know how one denies that there is a problem in our health care system, the end point of Moore's film.