Even if this was true, which the article states it is not, isn't that the point of insurance? To spread the risk and cost across a geographic or demographic populace while making a reasonable, but steady profit?
But the claim Aetna is making is that, at least in some of the markets it abandoned, it was making a net loss on insurance contracts.
Not really:
"As for Aetna’s claimed rationale for withdrawing from all but four states, Bates accepted that the company could credibly call it a “business decision,” since the overall exchange business was losing money;"
Again, both can be true...