Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates in federal, state and local races address leading up to the Nov. 3 election.

Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire centering the issues most important to residents across Johnson County.

Each day this week, we’ll publish the candidates’ responses to one question. So far, we’ve published responses on housing affordability, the war with Iran and immigration enforcement.

Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:

Last year’s budget law tightened work requirements for SNAP and cut future federal Medicaid spending. Readers asked whether those changes should stand, and how Congress will make up for coverage Kansans may lose. Would you vote to keep, change or repeal those provisions? What would you do about rising health insurance costs?

Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on the issue:

Steve Hohe (Libertarian)

In regards to SNAP and CHIP/Medicaid program, Congress needs to reexamine the rules placed on families with children the most vulnerable are the children and a family with a child who has disabilities. Benefits change due to child’s age to receive SNAP cut eligibility benefits in a family from 18 to 14 years is a problem by not knowing that family’s dynamics, in addition 14-18 years is a vulnerable time in a teenager’s life with having to add the worry how to feed themselves receive medical attention, both Physical and Mental care, plus diligently trying to get an education to free themselves from perpetual government dependency.

The rising healthcare insurance costs was the cause of the Affordable Care Act imposing too many laws and regulations on health care providers. It’s time to get the government out of the healthcare market and deregulate and allow Americans seek the amount of care they need and the price they want to pay.

Sharice Davids (Democratic, incumbent)

Our tax system is rigged for billionaires while hardworking families pay the price. Healthcare and food are fundamental necessities, not political bargaining chips. I strongly oppose these dangerous cuts — which were passed to fund tax giveaways for billionaires and big corporations — and I have introduced and supported bipartisan legislation to reverse both the Medicaid and SNAP reductions hurting Kansas families.

This law includes the largest Medicaid cuts in American history, stripping healthcare coverage from 92,937 Kansans, restricting reproductive healthcare, and driving up Affordable Care Act premiums by $708 per year for Third District families. Kansas already has more rural hospitals at risk of closure than any other state, and these cuts put six more local hospitals on the brink.

These healthcare cuts directly compound food insecurity, as SNAP serves as an economic backbone across our state and helps seniors and veterans put food on the table. In the Third District alone, 15,000 households risk losing food assistance under these changes. When SNAP is cut, local grocery stores lose vital revenue, food deserts expand, and the ripple effects hit local farmers, truckers, and store workers. Restoring full access to nutrition assistance remains a top priority.

There’s no question that we need bipartisan solutions to cut taxes for the middle class. But this budget is not just out of touch — it’s dangerous, irresponsible, and means higher costs for hardworking Kansans. I will keep fighting for fair tax policies that put everyday people first — not powerful D.C. donors and special interests.

Eric Jenkins (Republican)

Did not provide the Post with a response.

Coming up:

Tomorrow, we will publish the candidates’ responses to the following question:

Readers want to know to whom you’d answer in Congress. Some asked whether candidates would break with President Trump; others asked where they stand relative to their party’s most left-leaning members. Other readers said they’re tired of party loyalty over constituents. Give a specific example of where you might break with your party’s leadership on an issue and why.