Whether Brian Mulroney and Michael Kirby knew it or not, they probably introduced a game-changer into Canadian politics when they co-authored a now famous op-ed essay in The Globe and Mail on the state of the health-care system.

Just as Parliament was adjourning for Christmas, the Conservative former prime minister and the Liberal senator sounded the alarm about sustainability of the health-care system in this country in an op-ed piece filled with depressing scenarios.

Among them: the health-care system will be vacuuming up 80% of Ontario’s revenue by 2030 if costs continue to rise at 7%-8% annually.

Other provinces aren’t any better off. Needless to say, Canada’s gross domestic product and tax structure simply won’t be able to sustain that kind of spending.

It is time, politico-authors wrote, for some frank discussion — advice that should be heeded by politicians and voters alike. According to the essay: “The need for a frank discussion on our health-care future must no longer be avoided.’’

That kind of talk from a former Conservative prime minister and a retired Liberal senator who was popular with all parties could present a problem to a federal government that has practically made a religion of “Keep It Simple, Stupid” for its agenda.

Health care may be a major issue for most Canadians, according to the polls. But for a minority government obsessed with the KISS principle as it seeks an elusive majority, the health-care issue is toxic.

The federal health portfolio is occupied by a junior (at times, very junior) minister for the first time in more than a generation.

The 2004 health accord between Ottawa and the provinces is due to expire in three years. Yet, Stephen Harper’s government had pushed through a recent mandatory review of the accord as quietly and as quickly as it could.

The Harper government would rather have us talking about new prisons we apparently need despite a declining crime rate, one tough-on-crime bill after another, and other things that resonate with the Conservatives’ core constituency.

Better to talk about stealth fighter jets to keep us safe from terrorists than about developing an electronic health records system to keep costs down. Better to keep promising to cut taxes rather than tackling a chronic problem such as productivity.

Historically, the Conservatives have tended not to do well with issues like health and other social policy areas and better with crime and punishment and defence spending. But the current government has gone beyond historical biases. Issue management in Ottawa these days is done much in the way Lawrence Welk ran his orchestra — with a side order of schmaltz.

The success of keeping the political channel tuned to plain-vanilla programming has been limited. While the Harper government has maintained a steady lead, growth beyond its core base is glacial.

But the strategy certainly has been more successful than unsuccessful, given that the Opposition is still struggling to catch on with the public. In addition, the media, the chattering classes and a public that takes a free visit to the doctor for granted, have all consented to Government Lite.

Mulroney and Kirby come from an era when communications strategy was shaped to fit policy — instead of the other way around. So, what they wrote in their op-ed article probably won’t resonate with the average voter immediately.

But, after a few more predictions of doom, some increases in premiums and other signs of dysfunction in the health-care system, the media could start outlining a doomsday scenario for public health care. That could finally force the Harper government to address this difficult but crucial issue.

Who knows — maybe Ottawa will have to deal with other hard-to-frame issues such as productivity or internal trade barriers once Canadians realize that key economic problems need to be addressed.

Ironically, the health-care system was born during an extended federal minority government, from 1963 to 1968. Imagine where this country would be if Lester Pearson had allowed public policy to be driven by spin and communications policy concerns. IE