The US healthcare system has had a negative impact on the health outcomes of the US citizens according to a documentary filmmaker, Michael Moore. Moore’s filmmaking technique has brought a lot of praises as well as notoriety because most of the documentaries are politically inspired. In his film, Sicko, Moore claims that a change in the healthcare system should be effected if the citizens are to enjoy good health. Indeed, his film has changed the minds of many citizens who now wish that there was a fundamental change in the healthcare system in America. Moore attains this impact using the aspects of rhetoric such as logos, pathos, and ethos to prove these political opinions. The main target of Moore’s denigration is on the fact that the health industry has changed from being a service that honors the sanctity of life to being a money-making field. Moore’s opinions are based on the real events taking place in the American health sector, especially the insurance firms that have arisen to take advantage of the hopes of American folk. In addition, the documentary compares the US healthcare sector with popular countries such as the UK and France. In essence, the documentary seems like a good piece of evidence that should be taken seriously by the government.

There are several instances in the documentary where Moore uses pathos to convince the audience. First, the filmmaker uses subjective evidence and interviews to convince the viewer that the government is in the wrong especially in the health sector. First, the documentary emphasizes on the residents with health insurance challenges such as the resident who had to make a choice between his two fingers. As much as insurance problems are widely spread in the country, this fact does not imply that the sector is rotten. In essence, health insurance has changed most outcomes in the sector because it subsidizes the cost of treatment and prevention. Most of these interviews conclude with most of the participants tearing down with petitions to the government for change. This is a complete contrast with other countries as Moore travels to different destinations to analyze the situation. Indeed, the situation is different in other countries such as the Britain where all the participants show happy and satisfied grins all through the interviews. This is a good move from the filmmaker as the interviews at the beginning of the documentary because it creates and sustains interest from the audience. Moreover, the intensity of the stories gives the viewers a topic to discuss when the film concludes. The originality and the outrageous nature of the interviews ensure that the events remain notched in the minds of the audience for a long time.

Apart from pathos, there are various instances where Moore uses logos in his documentary. Indeed, Moore sets up the legitimate part of his contention by taking a gander at political advancements from the 1970s through the 1990s. What is especially stunning about these contentions is the degree to which medicate organizations fiscally control the Federal legislative issues of the United States. Another of Moore’s meetings concentrates on insurance informant Linda Peeno, who, in confirmation before an advisory group of Congress, uncovered the degree to which the protection business’ hobbies are contradicted to that of its clients and patients. She uncovered how partners were compensated taking into account their rates of refusals of payment. This legitimate contention shows the systemic issue of the insurance agencies controlling and dealing with the dispersion of healthcare institutions to patients. Having confirmation from insiders and specialists like Peeno and the previous call focus insurance agent, albeit infused with feelings, give a powerful expansion to the ethos of Moore’s film. In the event that the film had basically been an accumulation of accounts from patients who had been denied assistance, the film would not have the essential component of validity and rationale for the contentions Moore gives in the film.

Even so, there is motivation to doubt the viability of Moore’s contentions from his documentary. These reasons stem from the same motivations he uses to convince the viewer to accept his contentions, emotionalism. The interviews he does and movies often appear to end in tears. Moreover, the facts he decides to use in the film are picked specifically among others that demonstrate conflicting themes. The individuals he decides to converse with for the film are just some of thousands or millions more who have had the inverse experience. The mistake is attempting to legitimize Federal government activities taking into account the utilization of few interviews and single cases. Additionally, the film makes reference to other countries in general instead of single individuals in these nations. This methodology is justifiable given the setting and the audience of the film. Nonetheless, it positively debilitates Moore’s capacity to induce his

There are also some instances of ethos in the film in that a portion of the participants of the interviews is individuals who worked for these perfidious health insurance agencies. These individuals have an awesome background on their organizations and can be utilized as the ethos of Moore’s argument. The individuals in the interview depict and clarify how the health insurance agencies function.

The rhetoric of Sicko helps Moore put across his message concerning the American health sector. The pathos, logos, ethos are perfectly pitched in several parts of the film making sure that all the elements integrate to bring out the intended message. As much as the messages in Moore’s documentary seem outrageous, the reality of the health system in the US proves that health insurance should be improved and regulated.