Yes. You can't actually see a Raw file - it's just a load of data - so it has to be converted to a (v small) JPEG for viewing and the LCD image shows
all pre-set image mods.*
Furthermore, when you import a Raw file for post processing, many software packages pick up on the camera's JPEG presets and apply them to the Raw image for initial viewing, working on the assumption that they are at least close to what you want and therefore make a good starting point. However, they are only tagged to the image and are not embedded, so you can change them or delete them as much as you like.
In this respect, the fundamental difference between a Raw image and the in-camera JPEG is that the post processing decisions are made before the image is taken, rather than afterwards. In other words, if you make those pre-set adjustments to picture styles etc carefully (and don't need to make major adjustments beyond the scope of the in-camera post-processor) there is no reason why the JPEG produced by the camera will not be every bit as good as the one done in post processing.
Personally, I hate post processing so I take care with picture styles, white balance, noise reduction, exposure etc etc and rarely go near Photoshop

That's just good practise anyway, but I generally shoot Raw as well - just in case
* Edit: the histogram is also generated from the JPEG image, so that also reflects picture styles etc. In particular, the contrast setting shifts it left/right quite a bit, and that also effects the point at which the over-exposure warning flashes (blinkies) if that is enabled (which it should be - very useful to have).