Quack Wharton School Lefty's Crazy Medicare Advantage Theories--Part 3

As decribed here and here, some wacky lefty at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School has come up with a completely nutty theory about how the public Part C Medicare Advantage health plan works. It appears to me to show a significant misunderstanding of Medicare in general, so bad that you can hardly believe the person works in an academic institution.

To be clear, as I have written here multiple times, I’m all for the cuts to the 3% higher reimbursements currently given to the disproportionately poor and minorities on Part C.

I think there should be parity (a voucher) that is the same for all of us on Medicare. I think those poor people who are helped by the higher reimbursement should be helped through Medicaid rather than Medicare. (The poor people don’t want Medicaid though. They love Part C even though goo goo academics like this wacky lefty at Wharton seem to think the poor and minorities are being tricked into signing up. Yet the poor are going crazy in inner-city New Haven because AARP tightened its network.)

The Wharton finding that further cuts to Part C will have no impact on the plans is absurd. It is clear that the relatively minor cuts to these reimbursements that have already occurred to Part C since 2010 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the 9% average cut in reimbursements countered by the separate allegedly illegal bonus program) have already decreased Part C plan availability, increased average OOP limits, increased actual premiums paid (as opposed to average premiums offered), increased co-pays and deductibles, and severely tightened networks. How could someone possibly conclude -- given those facts -- that further more extreme cuts will not even further decrease plan availability, increase OOP limits to the maximum, further increase premiums, increase co-pays and deductibles, and even more severely tighten networks?