Am I understanding this right in that you're saying getting it right in camera slows you down and reduces the quality of your pictures?
I'm sure this isn't exactly what you meant but for the benefit of those that read it this way I disagree. First of all it can actually speed the process up as it can save you a large amount of time and effort in processing. Secondly getting the shot right in terms of things like exposure can improve detail, reduce noise and ultimately make the image look sharper. Also getting the exposure right allows you to capture the maximum dynamic range that you can (assuming single shot and not bracketing/HDR).
Apologies for not having made my meaning clear. By "getting it right in camera" I meant getting a good JPEG from the camera which needed no post processing. That means getting exposure, composition, contrast, white balance, colour saturation, dynamic range optimisation (tone mapping for mages with too high dynamic range for a normal JPEG, but still within the dynamic range of a RAW file). Those are all settings controlling JPEG processing which I can set in the camera, and if I get them right then as you say there is no post processing needed which saves a lot of time. If they're nearly right then a simple tweak of the ex-camera JPEG is all that's required, which can be done very quickly.
My problem was that by far the biggest amount of post processing time is taken up by those few shots which require to be processed from RAW, either because there was no time to get things right enough in camera for a simple tweak to the JPEG to get it right, or because it was in the nature of the image to need more complex adjustment than JPEG processing allows, such as using curves.
A good example of lack of time was shooting a search and rescue helicopter flypast a few days ago. It was a sunny day so there was high contrast between the shaded side and sunny side of the 'copters. Their orientation and background changed pretty fast. In frame filling shots I wanted technical detail of the lifting rigs etc.. That was sometimes in shade, sometimes in sun, and sometimes in both. Sometimes the background was bright sky, sometimes local scenery which I wished to capture. Sometimes they were moving so fast that there was no time for careful composition, just getting them in the viewfinder was difficult enough. So composition was a case of shooting a bit wide so that composition could be tidied up later by cropping. I could trust autoexposure to get the details I wanted within the dynamic range of the RAW file, but as I switched from uninteresting sky background to very interesting local scenic background there often wasn't time to trim the exposure compensation well enough to catch what I wanted within the dynamic range of normal JPEG settings. With normal in-camera JPEG settings optimised for best ex-camera images more than half the shots would have been too far wrong for JPEG adjustment, so I would have to go into RAW processing to get good images.
In my workflow processing from RAW is always much more time consuming than processing jpegs. What I have discovered is that if I reduced in-camera contrast, saturation, and sharpening, plus adding in some shadow filling tone mapping, even the best of the resulting ex-camera jpegs were too flat and dim and soft. In other words all the shots would require a little simple quick JPEG tweaking. But the bonus was that the jpegs now contained enough dynamic range etc. that none of the images needed to be processed from RAW. Simple quick tweaks to the jpegs were all that was required. The end result was that I greatly reduced the processing time required for those helicopter images, plus I reduced the amount of time needed for in-camera adjustments during the shoot. Even so I did lose a lot of potentially good shots because I failed to get my act together fast enough. But I ended up getting both more shots and a lot less total processing time by changing the in-camera jpeg settings so that all the images required post processing. In other words I saved both post processing time and camera adjustment time by deliberately adjusting my JPEG settings to be wrong for good ex-camera images.
Of course that's an extreme case. When I'm shooting still subjects from a tripod I have plenty of time to get the settings right for the best no-processing-needed images from the camera -- if I can rely on the lighting staying around. It often happens when I'm opportunistically strolling around in the golden hour that the light has gone before I've had time to get all the shots I wanted. Sometimes postponing some of the effort from getting it just right in the camera to putting the final polish on in post processing allows me to get more good shots in the time available.
That's why in my pursuit of getting the best images in the least total sum of shooting and processing time I deliberately avoid trying to get the JPEG images exactly right straight from the camera with no further processing needed. I deliberately make my jpegs too flat, dim, and soft, in order to minimise post processing by reducing the need to process from RAW. When things move fast instead of getting composition just right in camera, I'll just get it nearly right and shoot a bit wide so that a bit of cropping later gets the result I wanted, and gives me more time behind the camera for other shots.
I'm not advocating my particular methods as a general policy. These trade-offs between time behind the camera and in front of the computer depend on what kind of photography you do, what kind of camera you have, and what kind of software you use for post processing. These tradeoffs will probably change next time you upgrade your camera. I'm just pointing out that the world of photography is too various for "get it right in the camera" to be a good rule to follow. It's a good suggestion to consider which like some of the "rules" of composition is sometimes inappropriate. It's mostly inappropriate for me.
Joking aside, the reason I say this is that I did this initially and whilst RAW is better overall there was usually something I prefered in the jpeg, such as the way the reds looked for example, and it took me ages to get this part of the RAW to look the same. I decided to just shoot RAW so that I've got nothing to compare to, that way there's no chance of the 'grass being greener' 
