We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I would not tell a physician how to practice, but here are some advantages of computerization:
Cost can be minimal. There are Open Source EMRs like Oscar McMaster, here in Canada.
Notes can be read by any other physician who has permission. This is useful if the primary physician is on vacation or retired.
No (or less) paper. No wasted time pulling files and storing them in filing rooms.
Easy analysis of patient population. Do you know how many patients are on a particular medication (or combination) and their ages? I can pull that out of the database in a few clicks.
Graphical analysis of Lab Results are trivial.
If a physician can't type, an EMR is going to be a problem.
An EMR will NOT save you time with a patient. It will make more information available and help with all the follow-ups and post visit work.
..and with some specialties, they are not very useful.
The problem is not the EMRs, but with your government imposing their ideas of how to practice medicine.