It's a purely subjective priority issue, is what I was saying. All things that are entitlements only become such because they're first provided, naturally (can't have an entitlement without it first existing). I suppose your implication is meant to be that if it weren't provided, it could have never become an entitlement - that's true, but it wouldn't prevent the population from looking across the border or oceans and yearning for the entitlements others have in first world nations.
No doubt entitlement priorities vary based on the development level of the country, the culture, and so on ad infinitum. There is hardly a social safety net in China for example, the population is heavily expected to handle its own savings. Most likely their population will gradually demand more entitlements, looking to copy what others have done.
There are obviously all sorts of arguments that focus on bankruptcy, high costs, the burden of being without a job, and so on when it comes to healthcare - that sound far more reasonable than other entitlement arguments (eg should everyone be given a free yacht).
America of course does provide free and or heavily subsidized housing (not free house ownership mind you), in every state in the union in fact (along with federal programs). Mostly it's a matter of what you qualify for, and where (varying based on what's available in your location, and what your income is, etc). I don't think all entitlements are created equal in terms of demand or import; the population of a country is going to regard some as far more important than others.