First, the author describes the recent changes in health plans in Germany—including a new psychotherapy law, provisions for continuing education for specialists, and quality assurance drives—and the negative bearing these have on the conditions in which both psychoanalytic training and practice can take place. He then discusses the analytic stance on questions of remuneration, therapeutic purpose, frequency, and extraclinical research. Pollak identifies the emergence of a mythical belief that the “pure gold of analysis” is being adulterated, a myth that does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Finally, he addresses the issue of whether analysis is a unique subjective experience or a verifiable psychotherapeutic method. His conclusion is that it is both of these at once, that this dualism is right and necessary, and that analysis should square up to the plausibility demands made on it by empirical research and health policy.