No, the argument is, X is good, but incredibly expensive for individuals. X (interestingly) is cheap for employers. Therefore employers can provide this substantial benefit X to employees in a manner they would not be able to alone.
Additionally, without X, employer faces a decent chance of being forced to choose between firing a newly-disabled employee, or continuing to pay their salary even though they can't produce enough value to justify it. With X, you avoid being forced to choose between two bad outcomes.
I bring it up because there are downsides to coupling essential services to whoever happens to be your employer at the time. The upsides are mostly a consequence of the market adapting to decades-long tax policy. There's nothing special about employers, but I guess sometimes it's easier to reinforce a problem than to fix it.
You can provide the illusion of invalidating any argument if you distill it down far enough. That said, there's no argument in this piece. He suggests that the affordability of X is not well-known, and given its low cost and terrific upside, it's a feasible and responsible addition to any company's benefits. What are you not clear about?
The twist is that Everyone needs - or at least should have - it, but it's so expensive on an individual basis that most individuals forego it. The first few organizations I worked for did not provide it. I priced it and decided against it because it was so expensive and I was young and invincible. I would have been up a creek if I'd become disabled. Would that have been my employer's fault or responsibility? Nope. . .but it's an excellent benefit.
