There is a distinction in the way SS is managed financially, but I don’t see retirement as a right or entitlement. Regardless of the semantics, SS is still a government social program run off tax dollars. It’s just that those tax dollars have a distinct name on your paycheck and is not budgeted from a general fund.
Were it truly an investment pool, like it was sold to the public as, you would be able to pass benefits to your estate, but you are not.
I see VA, etc. as payment for service. I’d only consider it an entitlement if service were mandatory (e.g. for draftees). I have always been astonished how poorly vets are treated, even in the days of the revolution. As much as I want government spending to drop drastically, spending on vets is one of the very few areas I would like to see spending increase dramatically.
Maybe the system needs to be altered or shored up or done away with eventually. The government has mismanaged the SS pool of funds and stolen from those funds over the years. But under the current system, the government forcibly took my money out of every paycheck during my entire working career and you say I am not "entitled" to have it returned to me? Your argument lies in fallow ground.
My wife and I are both veterans and receive VA care. It was part of the deal when we joined. It was promised to us in return for serving our country. You hear the "fake news" outlets bad-mouth it but it is not as worthless as you or they say it is. It is the best medical care we have ever received. More funding? Absolutely.
So I disagree with your arguments that both SS and VA benefits are not really entitlements. Your arguments are logical fallacies. They are a distinction without a difference.