As someone living in the US with far better medical coverage than average I am awestruck by how wrong this statement is. Have you ever had to deal with a serious illness in the US?
Yes, with several family members. With middling insurance in Oklahoma. I'm quite well versed in how Blue Cross Blue Shield's tiered policies work with several types of specialists. If you are awestruck, perhaps it is you who needs to learn a bit more.
What was exactly incorrect? I would agree that "you can see any specialist you want" is an exaggeration, but as someone with good insurance, I have about 100+ different ENTs in the bay area I could bring my daughter to, Stanford and UCSF included.
Most of America is not like the Bay Area with its overabundance of specialists.
There are many places in the US where the closest doctor is a few hundred miles away, and many more where the only doctors within a few hours are primary care physicians.
> many places in the US where the closest doctor is a few hundred miles away
Although this statement may be true, it may also be irrelevant if there are no people in those places. That said, I'm not just being pedantic: my point is that lack of availability is far more likely to be a result of low population density than of being in the US.
Moreover, your comment fails to respond to the original point, which is that of affordability/availability to families with middle income. Poverty combined with low population density would likely result in even less availability, but, then, poverty is incompatible with "middle income".