Talk:Entitlement reform

Merge proposal

This article should not be merged because it describes the topic in multiple countries, whereas Social Security Reform only covers the United States.Stedrick (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I only made it about other countries because the original version appeared to be an article that was intended to promote a specific Republican candidate, and had sourcing issues.[1] When you start googling the term, it appears to be American centric. If you focus on the concept, it is a huge part of the European financial crisis. If the article should remain global, focusing on the concept and not dominated on the United States, merger probably not. (Not certain who would edit.) If it is written based on the original idea, [2] using the dominant US term and coverage using that term, I'd merge it in. --LauraHale (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to see others help with its expansion and writing about it globally. Once that is done, the merge proposal becomes moot. I just started the article, and others are expanding it. I am an American and a Republican, so I included my part I am familiar with. Others will include what they know. That is the way Wikipedia is meant to work. Stedrick (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to make this as simple as I can... our Right to Entitlement progression is a venue to solving a serious problem. When most would think that our right to this state of privilege we have to solve our dept is grand,.... a governing conceptual mind will still only hear what it tells itself. That same governing body will ensure that it is rich to the point that it will not understand what social security actually is...thus making the possibility of a merge incomprehensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.18.84.132 (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree this article should not be merged at this point, because its scope is not correctly described with Social Security Reform, as far as Medicare is concerned and potentially other social benefit programs. Gschadow (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

I am tagging this article because it needs a lot of work. I agree it is notable and should not be merged. But it lacks a good definition with a very clear scope. It mentions a few countries, but not the USA, where the word is heard quite a bit in the media. Also the specific programs subsumed as "entitlements" need to be outlined. It needs sources, a lot more. The history/origin of the word "entitlement" as a technical term needs to be described.

I did tag this with WP:POV, because there is a slant in the UK section saying "the problem" but whatever "the problem" is, is not clearly described. Also, in my opinion, in the USA context, it needs to be clearer about the social security fund being a trust fund, for the sole purpose of providing social security benefits, not to pad the US federal spending budget. By paying into the social security fund, citizens ought to be entitled to some benefits. There is a pejorative sound to this word "entitlement", as if it was illegitimate, excessive provision that is not really due to the recipients. At a minimum good sources need to be provided to make it clear what exactly is the issue. Gschadow (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Entitlement reform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710024245/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2011/National_Reform_Programme1.pdf to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2011/National_Reform_Programme1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)