Policy vs Theory of Change

Individual policy cannot be understood as falling at a definitive point on the left/right spectrum, because where that policy falls changes based on the material conditions it is responding to, and the motivations of those enacting the policy.

Universal Healthcare is a great and illustrative example of this kind of analysis. Every leftist is going to be in favor of a policy of universal healthcare. For one it is just a moral and humane position to hold, and it also removes a form of coercion that capital holds over labor. If everyone has a right to access good quality healthcare no matter what, it's harder to force someone into terrible and exploitative jobs with the threat of losing access to healthcare looming over you if you don't comply with the wishes of your boss.
However, healthcare is just a single component of the platform of human liberation that leftists advocate for, but a policy of universal healthcare is not always going to be a left wing initiative.

If you have a capitalist government enacting this policy, then maybe it is possible that this policy passed because left wing movements organized in large enough numbers to force this issue through and they were able to secure an important concession from capital and a win for the working class because of that organization.

But this may not always be the case, and there are insidious ways that seemingly left wing policies like healthcare and welfare get twisted when they are not administered by an institution that represents the interests of the people, but are instead implemented by institutions that represent capital (i.e. the US government, most European governments, ect).

One of the rationales for this line of thinking has to do with understanding Marx's concept of "The industrial reserve army of labor." Capitalists have to employ labor in order to create any new value out of the capital they own, and the less they have to pay that labor the more of that value they get to keep for themselves as profits. One of the primary levers of control they have over your wages has to do with how much it costs to replace you. If there is a group of unemployed, underemployed, struggling, and desperate people looking for work and willing to take whatever pay they can get just to get by, then that's what the cost of labor is. You have no leverage to negotiate for better wages, because why would your boss pay you more when they could just hire someone starving off the street who is willing to work for crumbs?

Looking at this relationship from a macabre perspective, if poverty and unemployment were a death sentence, then this reserve army of labor would start shrinking. The smaller this population gets, the more leverage you have over your wages again and the more you get paid, which means your boss is taking in less money.

So when things like healthcare and welfare are being administered on behalf of the capitalist class, they are no longer emancipatory policies, but rather levers of control used to manage the industrial reserve army on behalf of capital. If there are large swaths of people unemployed and destitute, as was the case in times like the great depression, there is suddenly tons of money to be found to spend on welfare and public works in order to keep the industrial reserve army healthy. Yet, paradoxically, when the economy starts booming again we always hear that there's no money left in the budget for welfare and public works, and we get huge pushes for austerity and budget cuts. This isn't because money actually ran out or that these programs are unsuccessful in any way. It's simply because they were never meant for us in the first place. When the economy is booming, that means unemployment is low, so these programs get cut back to throw more people into desperation and destitution, effectively refilling the industrial reserve army and giving back the leverage corporations have over our wages.

This is why it's better not to analyze whether policies are left wing or right wing, although it certainly is possible to make that analysis for a given set of material conditions. Rather, it's better to focus on whether those in power are left wing or right wing, and whose interests are certain institutions designed to uphold? What theories of change can we enact to push a left wing agenda?
For example, the US government is undoubtedly an institution designed to represent capitalists. You can't run for most elections unless you can collect millions of dollars in campaign contributions, which means that except for rare cases no one gets into government office without having a stamp of approval from the capitalist class. We can analyze this state of affairs and try to come up with a few ways of remedying this problem. Maybe we try an electoral route, and try to figure out grassroots methods of organizing for political office in order to bypass this problem with campaign contributions. Or maybe we can organize outside of the political process and form labor unions, and exert our own power and influence by holding enough levers of economic production in our own hand that we can bring the economy to a halt by going on strike and refusing to allow business as usual until our demands are met.

This is the question I find to be much more instructive and much more enlightening. If we want to advance a left wing agenda, if we want to advance policies that are legitimately emancipatory, then what is our theory of change for getting that done. How can we effectively make sure our interests are represented, so that a policy like universal healthcare doesn't just become a lever of control that is used as a way to manage the industrial reserve army on behalf of the capitalist class?