Both have state exchanges, both have an individual mandate, both have business mandates, and both have subsidies.
Massachusetts spending on health care was 23% of the state fisc in 2000, and 25% in 2006, but it has climbed to 41% for 2013. source: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323968304578249694095831444
Romneycare has received federal subsidy, and has caused tax increases. Massachusetts is one state, not fifty, so naturally the size of the programs differs. Aside from the scale of the programs and differences in threshold values, the architecture of the plans is the same.
Yes it is true there was a subsidy in Romneycare.
But rather than raise taxes, redistribute income, or spend additional money, Romneycare simply rediverted Medicaid funds already allocated to the state to pay for the subsidy. This was approved by the GWB Administration.
So Romneycare
1) Did not increase government spending.
2) Did not raise taxes
3) Did not redistribute wealth.
It required the 8% of the people in MA who did not have coverage to obtain it.
Many of these uninsured people would walk into hospitals and clinics, receive treatment and care, and then left the taxpayers stuck with the tab. The whole intent of Romneycare was to put an end to people gaming or free riding the system and sticking it to the taxpayer.