I personally am a beleiver in health testing. I think it is a tool that should be utilized.
However, do be aware that most of the screening tests are not 100% black and white. The skill of the veterinarian comes into play, whether a general vet, opthomologist, cardiologist etc. Also, some heritable diseases can develop with age. Unless the test is DNA based there is always a margin of error.
I agree with this. I do think non-breeders (and even some breeders) have a bit of a misconception about health tests. It seems like people believe that there are dogs who are genetically normal and dogs who are "flawed" when the truth is, all dogs carry the potential to produce some less than desirable traits both physically and mentally. Most tests currently available only tell you what the dog is (some even what the dog is at this moment), not what the dog will produce.
I still health test breeding dogs, still encourage newbies to health test because IMO the more knowledge you have the better. But health testing doesn't guarantee dogs will produce healthy dogs and not health testing doesn't guarantee they won't. Dog breeding is always a gamble. Plenty of dogs pass OFA and still produce HD or ED. And sometimes the more concerning issues in a breed don't have any health tests such as epilepsy, early cancer and bloat. To really progress further than we already have with improving the health of our breeds, DNA testing is needed. But there is a danger in that as well, as you can't just toss out every affected and carrier of any problem. That has happened with DNA testing in several breeds and in those breeds that results have been pretty devastating.
Nothing is ever black and white. In some breeds, working breeders rarely health test (and as was mentioned in another thread, their puppies are usually less expensive than show bred puppies) but I wouldn't consider them "bad breeders" or that they are breeding bad dogs. And there are breeds were certain health issues are so widespread that health testing for those issues seems to be pointless. For example, according to OFA 72% of Bulldogs and 64% of Pugs are dysplastic and 0% are Excellent. As such it is safe to assume that most dogs of these breeds have less than ideal hips. About the only solution for that would be to outcross to another breed and likely, to then select for different structure. Some corgi breeders who are well respected will breed dogs who don't pass OFA because in their opinion, the dwarf characteristics can cause hips to look abnormal. On the flip side, IGs have 60% of dogs submitted receiving an excellent rating and 0% being dysplastic (Whippets and German Pinchers are close to that as well). If I was looking for a puppy of those breeds, not OFAing wouldn't concern me much.