I disagree with the sentiment of this post. I know you're trying to be sympathetic to OP but we need to get real and have adult conversations about this without treading on egg shells.
Factually OP is an economic burden for the state. She is a big net beneficiary of the system and I imagine when medical and wider costs are factored in then this will probably be to the tune of at least £15k a year. That's £15k a year we need to raise through taxation each and every year to fund just one person. The average person pays around £10k in total in tax each year so she is basically withdrawing the equivalent from the system of the contributions of one and a half average people. All well and good except 24% of the population are now disabled and numbers are rising rapidly. You don't need to be a mathematical genius to work out that this whole model is pretty unsustainable.
Of course, there are other big taxes (Corporation Tax etc) that we can use to fund the welfare state but there are also a hell of a lot of other very expensive things we want to spend state money on too. We have astronomical levels of national debt that are crippling the country as interest payments now cost a two thirds of the health budget to service. We have been borrowing to fund our expensive welfare habit and that has to stop.
So your arguments about everyone pitching in to make sure nobody sinks don't really make sense when we aren't talking about a tiny minority needing help for a short time. We are talking about huge numbers of people needing a massive amount of help for their whole lives. Tax payers won't need to just 'pitch in' but to essentially assign a massive proportion of their tax contribution to funding this. This inevitably means that there is less money available to fund other state services and so when as you put it, the people who have worked all their lives want to take something out of the system that they have essentially paid for (which they undoubtedly may do at some time in their lives) they find that there is very little left for them.
The welfare state was never intended to function like this when it was envisaged and there has never been a referendum to change it's purpose. Instead we limp on with everyone getting increasingly frustrated and angry. The beneficiaries are cross because they aren't getting enough so they try to maximise what they can claim and the contributors are annoyed that they see so little for their money and try to minimise what they pay. We need to really get to the bottom of all of this and be honest and open about what we as a society are happy to fund and pay for with public money.