Liberals seem to be grasping for any ray of hope now that Obamacare has turned out to be such a bust. After epic incompetence at building a website, more than 5 million people losing their insurance, and skyrocketing costs and deductibles, the president’s fans need a good story. Any story will do.

So some are cheering that a conservative Republican – “far right,” as one progressive insider said – liked something about Obamacare. The Huffington Post even crowed that this conservative senator “likes a key part of Obamacare.”

These liberals are talking about me and a short post the National Review wrote out of a long interview. National Review’s reporter noted that I have a long record of opposing the Orwellian-named “Affordable Care Act,” then wrote:

“Simple repeal is no longer enough, (Johnson) believes. He says that Republicans have to acknowledge that the law now exists. ‘How do you repeal?’ he asks. ‘Yeah, you can get rid of the law, but what do you do with what’s already there?’ He continues, ‘Am I opposed to state-based exchanges? No.’ He thinks ‘it may be that they can be usable.’ ‘I’m all for repeal,’ he stipulates, ‘but it’s there. What do you do with what’s there? . . . We’ve got to start talking about the reality of the situation.’ He says that his approach, acknowledging the reality of the new structures put in place by Obamacare and offering a positive alternative, might be summarized as ‘repeal, dismantle, and transition to something better.’”

If liberal commentators think this means I’ve surrendered on Obamacare, I think they missed that last part – “dismantle” and “transition to something better.”

Their mistake is thinking that insurance exchanges – a “key part” of Obamacare – must mean exchanges the way Obamacare has set them up. This is like saying that Obamacare involves insurance and health care, so if you like insurance and health care, you must support Obamacare. They are wrong.

I certainly do not support exchanges as they are configured under Obamacare's coercive coverage mandates. Those mandates are driving up costs. They are denying individuals access to the doctors and treatments that in many cases have kept them alive. They are markets, but they are not free.

Instead, I do support the concept of risk-sharing pools, an example of a state exchange of the sort that Wisconsin ran successfully long before Obamacare (and one that Obamacare would close down). I support preserving the rights of Americans to be able to purchase any health care plan that they choose. They could do that on a state exchange – or a private exchange, like the small business pool from the Oshkosh Chamber of Commerce, for example, or private online markets – if the “Affordable” Care Act’s coercive rules weren’t limiting people’s choices to plans they often cannot afford and that are worse than what they had.

Unfortunately, Obamacare has already done a great deal of damage to our health care system, insurance markets, and people's lives. I feel it is my responsibility to do whatever I can to limit the damage and help preserve freedom and choice in our health care system. The problem with Obamacare isn’t the exchange mechanism, it’s the coercion. If the fastest way to undo the damage is to keep the mechanism but end the coercion, then that is what we should do.