Michael Moore’s controversial latest documentary about the United States’ health care system has been recently categorized as a personal battle of the filmmaker against his country. “SiCKO” does not present the American health care system with its good and bad parts, it focuses only on the bad aspects of it; that is why Moore’s documentary seems to be less than an objective documentary, and more of a personal revolt.

Whether he is right to be revolted, this is once again a personal issue, but making a movie featuring personal frustrations, that’s not OK. In fact, Moore’s critics haven’t said that he is completely wrong. It’s only that he fails to provide the documentary with a part where the health care system’s representatives could try to defend it, or just to speak about the good parts of the American service.

The popular filmmaker used “SiCKO” to launch only serious accusations on the American health care system, which involves doctors, hospitals, drug makers and so on. The documentary features common American people that are talking about their sad experiences related to the health care system, but not even a single fellow defending the system. Doctors, drug makers and hospital managers are accused of putting their own greedy interests above their patients’, while a number of about 50 million people are said not to afford the health insurance service.

On the other hand, Michael Moore is praising through his movie other countries’ health care systems. Canada, France, Britain and even Cuba are on this list, although the director doesn’t tell about any ranking: with France featuring the most secure health care system, all the other countries are not even in the first position of this ranking (Cuba, for example is ranked 39^th, below the United States).

As critics say, “SiCKO” could have been quite a good documentary on this issue, if Moore had been wise enough to let the both sides to express their problems and concerns. But the director chose to exaggerate only the bad parts of the story.