Even some of the cheap ones may have the no flash option and a cheap table top tripod for a light camera can be bought for ten bucks. No sense going super cheap now and regretting it later. Try doing a search at http://www.dpreview.com in their camera buying section, or join the group..then you can post questions.Do not want to take up photography, just want a good cheap camera with a good macro setting.
As cameras become more advanced and cheaper, (Rate of about 2x per eighteen months or so), photographers who have to work to get that right shot will be forced into a little corner. I'm a complete amateur but I can take a great shot with my dad's camera that has a good macro lens, yet with mine I'm an absolute failure. And his is several years old. If someone spends a thousand bucks on a well rated camera nowadays, they can do as well as what people have posted, or better. That's why someone doesn't need to get into photography to take great shots, as Bryophyta69 is trying to say (He just wants a good camera!).
There was a time when professional photographers would use magnesium flashes, spend hours on a single shot, work specifically with the lighting, and spend much of their time elbow deep in hazardous chemicals developing the film themselves. A cheap digital camera now will give much greater results than that, and they're only getting better.
Sorry if I offended you. The point I was trying to make is that the gap is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. Besides basic skills (Which I barely have) a camera really does make the difference, calculating and adjusting flash level and exact zoom to which you really don't have to do much in comparison to what it used to be. Take one of these professionals and put them in a situation where they just have an old film camera with a magnesium flash and you'll see what I mean.
I apologize to all photographers, but if you feel that the camera makes no difference, and a good one can't let an amateur make great shots, you're just deluding yourself.