This is similar to the push away from pensions to 401k's in the 70's and 80's. It was supposed to be great for the individuals, more flexibility and control, can take it from job to job. Yet instead it was great for the financial services industry as they got to charge a higher service fees on their mutual funds to more people. The only people to lose out where the employees as the companies got reduced liabilities and payouts and the financial services sector go a large bump in service fees....
I'm curious if the majority frame it that way. To me, employers never really paid for benefits. It was the employees wages that was converted into health insurance as a loophole to circumvent WWII wage controls.
Using this "employee's-total-compensation" frame of reference, the real value add from the employer was having a Human Resources staff handling the administrative headaches of benefit plans. The "employer's health insurance" has always been the "employee's money" that was preallocated.
Today, employers providing health insurance is a voluntary arrangement. Employers do it to stay competitive in attracting job applicants. If employers are voluntarily providing insurance, and if the employer insurance component goes away, it seems logical that they will also voluntarily adjust wages offered in the marketplace for employees-DIY-insurance (because WWII wage controls are no longer preventing it.)
As an analogy, when Amazon or other retailer says they offer "free shipping", does that really mean they pay shipping? Isn't it really us, the customers that pay that free shipping? Therefore, "free shipping" is just a synonym for "the shipping cost you paid is baked into the price and through Orwellian doublespeak, we restate it back to you as free shipping."
Isn't "free shipping" frame-of-references similar to "employer provided insurance"?
I think you're misinterpreting what WSJ wrote.
The "paid in full" in this context means wages are adjusted up. (I'm not saying that in real life, the businesses will do this. I'm just emphasizing what "paid in full" means mathematically as WSJ wrote it.) If you read the later paragraph[1], you'll see that they mean for the total monetary compensation to be adjusted up (via the dollar contribution.)
This is in contrast to the current situation we have. If we use WSJ's phrasing, ever since WW2 wage controls, we've been "paid partially" in dollars.
today: compensation "paid partially in dollars" + employer insurance
possible future: compensation "paid in full as dollars" (DIY insurance)
Again, the above is just the interpretation of the text.
As to whether or not things will play out that way, that's more of speculation about economics and politics. The journalist and we readers can't predict the future and know for sure if businesses will use it as an opportunity to "trick" employees by never adjusting wages or actually readjust wages to stay competitive in recruiting.
In my opinion, a possible future includes ABC Inc offering $50k-with-employer-insurance and XYZ Inc offering $60k-with-DIY-insurance.
[1]from the article: ... employers consider whether the “best” option is simply to give employees a certain “defined contribution” dollar amount toward their monthly health insurance, ...
People will look up and say, well we have this huge 'benefits' apparatus whose only real purpose is to manage the social costs of health care when it looks like people are managing just fine without it.
You and I might look at the apparatus as overbearing, but the reality of it is, most people just don't have the time, patience, or inclination to care about their health, and it imposes huge social costs. When Grandma starts losing the little quality-of-life she has left, rather than an honest discussion, we have people saying, "keep her alive at all costs!" A big part of the health care infrastructure we have is structurally set up to deal with people making irrational demands of it.
Once people start to understand health and how to think about it and pay for it, there's no reason why things like the individual mandate can't go the way of the dodo.
That is so completely disingenuous. I think we can assume that blog writers at the WSJ are aware that wages have been stagnant for the majority of workers for over two decades, despite significant gains in productivity. So, really, what they meant to say was "giving way to an alternative where employers stop paying for benefits."