Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of your cost-to-orbit is achieving orbital velocity itself. So a marginally lower orbit (LEO is already ~100-250 miles) doesn't seem like it would offer that much in the way of launch cost savings. Can you substantiate your "much cheaper to launch" statement?
The Falcon9 for example has a payload of 13,150 kg to LEO and 4,850 kg to GTO so that is nearly 3 times the cost ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9 ). Every rocket I have checked has a similarly small payload to GTO compared to LEO. The problem is that even though its not that much fuel to get from LEO to GTO, you have to haul all that fuel up to LEO first.
Geosyncronous is a whole 'nother matter, and yes, anything placed there will probably still be orbiting when the Sun goes supergiant. Ponder that.