Medicare is unsustainable. That’s not politics, it’s math.

Given the current level of benefits and projected increases in the cost of medical care, the program eats up more and more of the federal budget.

In 1965, when Medicare was adopted, it was 2.6 percent of federal spending. In just five years, it will be more than 30 percent.

As it grows, it will squeeze out other governmental priorities, everything from national defense to medical research.

But it’s not Medicare alone. The federal government’s health care system for members of the military and retirees faces the same financial challenge.

U.S. businesses, such as General Motors, have been crippled by medical obligations to workers and retirees.

Millions of American families, meanwhile, are seeing a larger and larger share of their paychecks go toward medical insurance premiums that cover less and less of their medical expenses.

Then there are the millions of individual Americans and families who cannot afford insurance at all.

Congress, meanwhile, seems deadlocked on the Medicare issue. Many Republicans are backing a proposal put forward by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, that would turn guaranteed Medicare benefits into a voucher program coupled with tax cuts.

His flawed theory being that the government will give older people a set amount of money and they will be on their own to find health care insurance, regardless of whether it is either available or affordable.

The Republican presidential candidates are quietly distancing themselves from this plan.

Democrats and President Barack Obama presented an equally unrealistic plan in last year’s Health Care Affordability Act.

Its rosy projections call for Medicare to simply stop paying so much to doctors, hospitals and nursing homes in the future.

Basically, the law says let’s book the savings now and figure out where to cut later. That’s not a plan, it’s wishful thinking.

What we don’t hear much about in this debate is why American health care costs so much in the first place.

As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out in a June 5 column, the U.S. and Canada both spent about 7 percent of G.D.P. on health care in 1970.

Today, Canada spends 10.5 percent on health care while the U.S. spends 16 percent.

The Canadian system may have its flaws, but we’re willing to bet most Americans would deal with those in order to pay 41 percent less for medical care.

And Canada isn’t unique. Every industrialized society in the world has found a way to deliver health care to people at a lower cost, often while covering everyone and providing better results.

Perhaps there are too many entrenched vested interests at the table — drug makers, hospitals, insurers and physicians — to make our health care system affordable.

But real political leadership would be figuring out how other countries manage to provide health without bankrupting their people, and then having the courage to implement meaningful change here.

Our entire health care system is unsustainable, and simply cutting benefits to people doesn’t touch the real problem — exploding costs.

[email protected]

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and editorial board.