Yes, says Erik Angner, a professor at George Mason University. In The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty, Angner correctly notes, Hayek indicated that there was no need to take a dogmatic position in opposition to government-furnished safety nets. On the other hand, Hayek probably was opposed to government takeovers of entire industries, and the structure of Obamacare makes one suspect that is the ultimate object in this case.
On still another hand, this is the problem with the Hayeks and Friedmans of the world. No one disputes that they did much to bring free-market ideas to the public (although whenever you criticize them even slightly, you are invariably accused of denying the good that they did). At the same time, they made enough exceptions on truly fundamental questions that they left the rest of us to deal with the inevitable “But even Hayek said….”
Hayek’s most significant contributions were his works in pure economics, in the late 1930s and early 1940s. (You can read some of those here.) This is what won him the Nobel Prize. They are difficult reading, which is why people prefer The Road to Serfdom or his later works in political philosophy.
It’s not a hard-and-fast rule, but the most robust promoters of Hayek and Friedman tend to be borderline allergic to Rothbard and Mises, whose names they cite far less often, if ever. This allows them to be more respectable in the public-policy circles that despise them. But it also opens them up to the “even your heroes Hayek and Friedman…” trap. (Thanks to Spenser Eller.)